Complete and Utter Disgrace

[shanebelanger]

Hello all, this is my first post and I hope that I am putting it in the correct section. This happened yesterday the 15th of April, 2008 at the University of Maine at Farmington. Watch Me I am shocked and appalled to see this happening... My sister is currently attending this school and was shocked and outraged at this. Currently I am e-mailing the president of the school and I urge you to do the same. This is despicable and should not be tolerated. Lets all band together and show them that this was not taken lightly!
Name: Theo Kalikow
Position: President
E-mail: kalikow@maine.edu
Telephone: 207-778-7256

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Any and all Federal and State funding for a school like this, one that tolerates desecration of the American flag, should be ended.

Such a disgraceful act certainly falls within the realm of protected speech as per the first amendment, but there is no requirement that the American taxpayer should have to fund this garbage.

 

[Redworm]

Most people in the video seemed to go out of their way to avoid stepping on the flag. Good for them. Good for the veteran, too. And for the school officials for standing up for free speech. And for the student to being bold enough to do something like that. But especially for the people that made a conscious effort to step around.

Any and all Federal and State funding for a school like this, one that tolerates desecration of the American flag, should be ended.

Such a disgraceful act certainly falls within the realm of protected speech as per the first amendment, but there is no requirement that the American taxpayer should have to fund this garbage.

Taking away funding would be an infringement on free speech as it would be a punishment for exercising it.


Also, that video would be a lot more effective without the sappy country music.

ooh! more info

http://www.dailybulldog.com/stories/UMF_flags.html

The flag installation was for an art in politics class assignment, taught by Kate Randall, which required students to execute a social experiment. Crane wanted to see if people - mostly students - would walk around or over the flags. Crane videotaped people from the knees down to document their chosen path.

Susan Crane's father, a veteran who supported her project, helps her pick up the flags off the floor in the UMF student center.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Taking away funding would be an infringement on free speech as it would be a punishment for exercising it.

No, it certainly wouldn't. The absence of Federal or State funding would not stop the artist from creating the work.

The absence of a government funded soapbox is not an infringement on free speech.

If any taxpayer money went to fund this artist's project then it's more accurate to say that coercing taxpayers into funding political speech in this manner is an infringement on their first amendment rights.

 

[tyme]

"Is this how we should treat veterans?" (text from the video)

I don't see any veterans being treated poorly. As was pointed out, there are veterans on both sides of this issue. Other people are not responsible if you get upset because of your own values. If seeing flags on the floor was so upsetting, why didn't you leave?

This country, its colleges, and other institutions, are not in place to propagate any one person's or group's value system. Some things they do we'll all disagree with. I think it's important to separate the trivial issues from more substantive issues.

If you can't or won't separate the flag from that which it signifies, I submit that you are contributing to the intolerance and general ideological angst that is causing unnecessary conflict in this country.

Kudos to the Provost for actually attempting a dialogue.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I did not find the statement made by the flags offensive and I did not see the veteran receiving anything but respect and fair treatment.

I have served my country and I find all the clap trap about flags to be a bunch of crap. I did not fight for a piece of cloth with a certain pattern on it. I fought for my friends, family, and ideals. A flag is a flag and if they changed it tomorrow I would not care...as long as what it stood for was not changed.

It is the right of the artist to make the statement and people that want to see the school punished for allowing the artist to express themselves are ridiculous and un-American. I doubt they would want funding removed if an atheist had been protesting the image of Mary being used in an artwork sponsored by school money.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

PBB wrote:

It is the right of the artist to make the statement and people that want to see the school punished for allowing the artist to express themselves are ridiculous and un-American. I doubt they would want funding removed if an atheist had been protesting the image of Mary being used in an artwork sponsored by school money.

PBB, first, your're permitted by the rules of this forum to address me directly.

Second, I think most Americans, and virtually all veterans, would agree that showing such disrespect for our flag is contemptable and unAmerican in and of itself.

I would certainly support this school allowing a student artist to use the image of Mary, Muhammed, or the American flag in any way they please so long as taxpayer's money is not being used to do so and, if they specifically target the American flag in this way, they aren't receiving any other type of Federal or State funding.

The point you have missed is this: what I and many others are objecting to in these cases is the use of taxpayer money to help fund these projects. Forcing anyone to help pay for this garbage under color of law is an infringement on their first amendment rights.

Your belief that hard-left "artists" such as this are "entilted" to a government funded soapbox is not supported by any SCOTUS precedent, or common sense for that matter.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Second, I think most Americans, and virtually all veterans, would agree that showing such disrespect for our flag is contemptable and unAmerican in and of itself.

You are right...you think that...but you do not know it. I am willing to bet just as many and probably more veterans like myself would not want to see the school have funding removed because we fought for the right to express ourselves without being censored by someone else's prejudices.

The point you have missed is this: what I and many others are objecting to in these cases is the use of taxpayer money to help fund these projects. Forcing anyone to help pay for this garbage under color of law is an infringement on their first amendment rights.

That is a load of crap argument. These showings are not paid for by your taxes. Schools collect tuition from students and lab fees that cover the cost of materials and expenses for art classes which produce the pieces used in these exhibits. The tax funding they receive covers facilities, maintenance, salaries, etc.

What you are doing is using a false argument that a lot of talking heads like to use to try and punish a school for allowing a student to express themselves by removing funding that has nothing to do with the exhibit itself. Last time I checked that was a form of censorship/extortion and very un-American. Your tax money did not buy a flag or a tube of paint. It might have subsidized the building the show was in and paid the salaries of the staff on hand but it did not pay for the art.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Second, I think most Americans, and virtually all veterans, would agree that showing such disrespect for our flag is contemptable and unAmerican in and of itself.

Virtually all, however, is not all. Personally I think there is something uniquely American about burning a flag. I don't know that I'd ever feel the need to do so myself, but I can certainly support the rights of others to do so. I can even support the burning of the flag itself, if the statement made is merely an assertion of the right to do so (and I have heard of such instances). EDIT: Noting, of course, that I am a combat veteran.

The point you have missed is this: what I and many others are objectiing to in these cases is the use of taxpayer money to help fund these projects. Forcing anyone to help pay for this garbage under color of law is an infringement on their first amendment rights.

Where in that story did you see that taxpayer money was used to fund it? Or are you looking at another source that I'm not? I didn't see any allusion to federal or state funding, and as such I guess I made the assumption that the student provided the materials on her own.

Of course, you originally said this:

Any and all Federal and State funding for a school like this, one that tolerates desecration of the American flag, should be ended.

Such a disgraceful act certainly falls within the realm of protected speech as per the first amendment, but there is no requirement that the American taxpayer should have to fund this garbage.

So it's the mere idea that the school would tolerate it, not that the desecration itself is being funded by taxpayers. How much did it cost the taxpayers for the school to tolerate this display?

I suspect it was a very round number, if you know what I mean.


Also, I suspect that state funding for a school like the University of Maine (yeah, this isn't some private art college) isn't exactly going to get pulled, if you know what I mean. And I'm not seeing how it's reasonable to pull federal funding, for as long as you're still taxing that state's citizens for that service. But I think my opinion of the "federal funding bat" is well documented on this forum.

EDIT: Well, it is an art school...but it's still part of the UM university system.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

That is a load of crap argument. These showings are not paid for by your taxes. Schools collect tuition from students and lab fees that cover the cost of materials and expenses for art classes which produce the pieces used in these exhibits. The tax funding they receive covers facilities, maintenance, salaries, etc.

No, that's merely a load of crap response form you. Show me the State University, which this one is, that receives even 60% of it's budget from student tuition. This STATE University is typical of most and receives most of its funding, including its Art Dept., from the State and Federal Government. I believe if you look at the linked article again you'll notice the flag is on the floor of the University building, or did the Univ. of Maine direct this young woman to utilize a portion of the floor paid for entirely by lab fees and student activity money?

What you are doing is using a false argument that a lot of talking heads like to use to try and punish a school for allowing a student to express themselves by removing funding that has nothing to do with the exhibit itself.

No, I said repeatedy that this student has the absolute right to make this statement. What I oppose is my tax money being used to support any political speech, however benign, and the use of ANY tax money to support a school that permits this attack on the American flag.

Your tax money did not buy a flag or a tube of paint. It might have subsidized the building the show was in and paid the salaries of the staff on hand but it did not pay for the art.

Thanks for maiking my point again.

And I'm sure most veterans make the distinction, as do I, between the absolute right to free speech that is privately funded, and coerced taxpayer funded political speech.

 

[Playboypenguin]

No, that's merely a load of crap response form you. Show me the State University, which this one is, that receives even 60% of it's budget from student tuition. This STATE University is typical of most and receives most of its funding, including its Art Dept

You have obviously never taken a college level art course. Like I said before. You are not paying for his art at all. Removing funding because you don't agree with how one free individual chose to express themselves is a disgusting idea.

Thanks for maiking my point again.

Your point is not made at all. What you are discussing is removing venues of expression because you do not agree with them simply because they take place on a school campus. You want to punish the school because you do not agree with the actions of one of it's students.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Virtually all, however, is not all. Personally I think there is something uniquely American about burning a flag. I don't know that I'd ever feel the need to do so myself, but I can certainly support the rights of others to do so. I can even support the burning of the flag itself, if the statement made is merely an assertion of the right to do so (and I have heard of such instances). EDIT: Noting, of course, that I am a combat veteran.

I used to think that way also. I changed my mind after talking to some veterans who pointed out the special nature of the American flag, how it is a sacred symbol used to drape coffins at funerals for veterans for example.

I have come around to supporting a flag-desecration amendment to the Constitution after solidly opposing it on the exact same ground you referenced.

Where in that story did you see that taxpayer money was used to fund it? Or are you looking at another source that I'm not? I didn't see any allusion to federal or state funding, and as such I guess I made the assumption that the student provided the materials on her own.

Somewhere around half of the budget of any State University is funded by the taxpayers, either from Federal or State funds. It's fungible money as well. This young woman's professor’s salaries, the building housing the display, the electricity that heats and lights it, are all at least partially taxpayer funded.

Of course, you originally said this:

So it's the mere idea that the school would tolerate it, not that the desecration itself is being funded by taxpayers. How much did it cost the taxpayers for the school to tolerate this display?

I suspect it was a very round number, if you know what I mean.

Yes, I think any school that would even merely tolerate this type of targeting of the American flag should be cut off from State and Federal money. Let them rot.

Also, I suspect that state funding for a school like the University of Maine (yeah, this isn't some private art college) isn't exactly going to get pulled, if you know what I mean.

Sadly, I agree. I can still remember when shutting down the NEA-NEH was a litmus test for conservative Republican candidates. Then came George... who has increased funding for these hard-left, anti-American outfits almost every year he has been in office.

 

[JuanCarlos]

And I'm sure most veterans make the distinction, as do I, between the absolute right to free speech that is privately funded, and coerced taxpayer funded political speech.

Okay, you're making a claim here. So I ask you, exactly how much did this political speech cost those poor coerced taxpayers? In other words, what was the additional cost to the taxpayer due to this demonstration happening, over what it would have cost had the demonstration not been allowed?

I have a feeling I know the answer.

No, that's merely a load of crap response form you. Show me the State University, which this one is, that receives even 60% of it's budget from student tuition.

Okay.
[EDIT: Note that I didn't have to search for this. This is the one and only state university I bothered to check. I'm kinda familiar with it.]

Also, assuming any materials were provided by the school (which I doubt), PBP's point stands that those materials were payed for through student fees, not state funding. In other words, had the student not taken the course that money would not have been available at all.

I used to think that way also. I changed my mind after talking to some veterans who pointed out the special nature of the American flag, how it is a sacred symbol used to drape coffins at funerals for veterans for example.

I've seen more flag-draped coffins than I cared to. Didn't change my position on this.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

You have obviously never taken a college level art course. Like I said before. You are not paying for his art at all. Removing funding because you don't agree with how one free individual chose to express themselves is a disgusting idea.

Huh? I am not allowed to object to MY MONEY funding this crap attack on the flag?

And, no, thank God, I never had to take a college level art course.

Your point is not made at all. What you are discussing is removing venues of expression because you do not agree with them simply because they take place on a school campus. You want to punish the school because you do not agree with the actions of one of it's students.

My point was about coerced public funding of this type of political speech, and it was made considering you admit that this "art" is most likely at least partially taxpayer funded since taxpayer money pays for the school building, professorial salaries, student loans, etc.

And again, denying an artist a government funded sopabox is not the removal of any "venue of expression." Even without taxpayer subsidies, this young woman is free to go on creating her art, and the University is free to go on tolerating it, as they say in Maine: from now till the cows come home.

 

[JuanCarlos]

My point was about coerced public funding of this type of political speech, and it was made considering you admit that this "art" is most likely at least partially taxpayer funded since taxpayer money pays for the school building, professorial salaries, student loans, etc.

And I'll ask, yet again, what would the difference in cost (to you, the taxpayer) be had this particular demonstration not been allowed? How would faculty costs have changed? Building costs? The student's loans?

Consider that a direct question, not a rhetorical one.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Okay, you're making a claim here. So I ask you, exactly how much did this political speech cost those poor coerced taxpayers? In other words, what was the additional cost to the taxpayer due to this demonstration happening, over what it would have cost had the demonstration not been allowed?

I have a feeling I know the answer.

I have no intention of trying to scare up the budget reports for the University of Maine's Art Department, even if such things are online.

I really don't care enough about winning an Internet argument to invest the time.

But I think it's reasonable to assume that taxpayer money paid for at least the venue, the building, where the display is housed, as well as the utilities, the professorial salaries, etc.

Also, assuming any materials were provided by the school (which I doubt), PBP's point stands that those materials were payed for through student fees, not state funding. In other words, had the student not taken the course that money would not have been available at all.

The building would still have been there, as would the professor, the lighting, etc.

I've seen more flag-draped coffins than I cared to. Didn't change my position on this.

Thanks for your service.

The veterans I referred to were WWII - Korea era. Maybe the later vets have a different, more liberal, take?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Huh? I am not allowed to object to MY MONEY funding this crap attack on the flag?

You didn't pay for it. Not a dime of it.

My point was about coerced public funding of this type of political speech

Once again, you are not funding it. You are funding a school. The ideas and expressions of it's students are simply an aspect of higher learning.

I guess you want to close down a school that would dare to produce people who do not agree with you.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I guess you want to close down a school that would dare to produce people who do not agree with you.

Pretty much.

I have no intention of trying to scare up the budget reports for the University of Maine's Art Department, even if such things are online.

I really don't care enough about winning an Internet argument to invest the time.

You don't need to. I'll accept a simple explanation of what the cost of this demonstration was to you. Not of the school...the school would be there either way. Simply explain to me any way in which allowing this demonstration cost you more than not allowing it. At all.

You can't. Because it didn't.

Oops. Went and answered that question I asked a couple posts up. How rude of me.

 

[Wildalaska]

Let 'em piss on the flag if thats what they want to do at school. They are just looking for attention. Some will grow out of it.

Casing a net brouhaha is what they really want to do.

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? How 60s tripe..much, better one issuppose they desecrated the flag and no one cared. Oooo look at the kiddies Mabel pretending they are .....revolutionaries, how cyu-ute.

WildsnoreAlaska TM

 

[5Wire]

It really is freedom of expression and has been adjudicated as such in similar demonstrations in the past but I wonder how the UMF would have dealt with nooses on doors or perhaps some of the Islamic cartoon parodies instead of the flag, hate crimes, no doubt.