I don’t think it’s racism, just a school with fucking insane rules that should never be allowed:
Barbers Hill Independent School District prohibits male students from having hair extending below the eyebrows, ear lobes or top of a T-shirt collar, according to the student handbook. Additionally, hair on all students must be clean, well-groomed, geometrical and not an unnatural color or variation. The school does not require uniforms.
Why the fuck schools give a single shit about how kids dress themselves or wear their hair is beyond me.
Those rules are there to be racist, these types of dress codes were literally invented to be exclusionary and/or erase culture to “”“assimilate”“” populations of native people.
So… Where is the catalog of approved haircuts for students to pick from? Fucking fascist ideas being masked in bullshit like avoiding fake “distractions” in classrooms.
I’m sure we could get creative here. Like, you could go with the Friar Tuck look with the top part shaved and that would be fine. I guess it depends on what they consider “geometrical”
Principal Lance Murphy is literally just going to die on this hill apparently. Between the massive cost the school district took because of the 2020 court loss over this exact same thing, and this giant L the school district is about to take for not only being now in Violation of Federal Law but also Texas literally passed a law, because of this asshat and the 2020 loss, indicating that he's not legally allowed to do exactly what he's doing.
The school district also filed a lawsuit in state district court asking a judge to clarify whether its dress code restrictions limiting student hair length for boys violates the CROWN Act
Which if you are unsure if your policy is violating a law or not, you should likely not have the policy until the court gives you more clarity. Because if the Courts do indeed indicate that the school is in violation of Texas' CROWN Act, they've just handed this kid millions of dollars in restitution, which I guess they can just pile on top of the millions this school district has blown so far on litigation.
You would think that at some point taxpayers would be up in arms, but nope it's Texas, blowing billions on stupid lawsuits is their thing.
How does a previous case not automatically make the current situation unacceptable? Do they have to retry the exact same situation over and over again?
Because principal is a bully and willing to use his powers to destroy lives. The methods to protect people are very slow and so he gets away with it for years until the district loses a major lawsuit. Then he quietly gets reassigned or retires and we pretend the entire thing never happened.
A previous case is certainly a good argument in court, however the opposition may be able to argue material differentiating circumstances that may not be immediately obvious (in general, not in this case). That is why it isn't considered an automatic win.
To be fair being racist has long been a winning strategy in Texas so you can imagine that their bag of tricks isn’t particularly deep in matters like this
I’m not a kid, but looking back on this type of situation as an adult, I’d settle for half of whatever they offer as long as the administrator(s) driving this were also banned from all public education jobs in the state, permanently. Fines to the district aren’t a deterrent to bad administration on their, but fear of job security absolutely is.
Fuck it makes me so mad when schools make boys cut their hair. My little brother had to cut his hair that he had been growing since he was in his single digits. It was devastating. This was back in the early '00s
Nah, they’re not asking. This is a setup for a challenge of the CROWN Act and a possible reversal. Just watch, they’ll appeal it all the way up to Texas Supreme Court if they need to.
And the way they determine "unusual" is by doing this absolutely ahistoric, arbitrary polling of current policy. They cherry pick whatever statistics serve the politics of the person writing the decision.
e.g., when ruling whether it was "unusual" to execute people with cogitative disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia), they did a tally of how many states allowed execution in these cases vs did not but deliberately omitted how many states do not allow ANY executions. Then concluded that slightly more states allow executions of the mentally unfit than don't even though it was absolutely incontestable fact that the vast majority of states did not allow this kind of execution.
Ignore that the ruling technically banned those executions... because it factually didn't, since it left it up to states to define cognitive disability however they pleased and the behavior of the kill-happy states was not affected by the ruling.
When I was really sick and needed regular blood tests, I’d have some nurses take at least a half-dozen stabs at me before getting a usable vein. We’re talking both arms and then moving to the top of the hand.
It happens. I wouldn’t call it cruel or a form of punishment, as they weren’t purposely trying to make my life miserable.
It’s mildly annoying as the patient, and I’m sure a little embarrassing for the person with the needle.
Did you know it was going to kill you if it worked? Because that would be the cruel part. Imagine knowing, for days, maybe even months after your last appeal that you were going to die. You know the exact date and time. You know nothing you can do will stop it.
How did he know that would be the consequences of his actions when plenty of people have been sentenced to life in prison for similar actions? How did he know he wouldn’t be dealing with a hung jury? Unless he was able to predict the future, which he could not, suggesting he knew that ‘capital punishment by lethal injection’ would be the consequences of his actions is ridiculous. On top of that, he may literally not know the difference between right and wrong, something that is entirely possible. In which case, again, he would not have known the consequences of his actions.
And it’s not about his feelings. The law shouldn’t be sidestepped just because a crime is very bad. Otherwise, why not just let police kill people like him and avoid trial completely?
I’m not sure why you think this specific case should be an exception when it comes to whether or not a law is ethical or even legal based on the U.S. Constitution. Even if this specific guy wanted to die, many very clearly did not. Including the innocent people that have been executed.
Should whether or not something is legal be decided on a case-by-case basis or should the law apply equally for everyone? Because I would certainly say the latter.
Friend, I’m not saying I support capital punishment. No doubt that there have been innocent people put to death (often people of colour), and that would be a failing of the justice system. Even the idea of capital punishment makes me sick.
But in the context we find ourselves in, the way Creech has been treated couldn’t possibly have been more humane or compassionate. He’s already tried to kill himself, saying he does not want to be stuck in prison for the rest of his life.
How would you go about making this situation better for this murderer? Or the family of his victims?
Should whether or not something is legal be decided on a case-by-case basis or should the law apply equally for everyone? Because I would certainly say the latter.
Well, sentencing is done on a case-by-case basis. Which is why some people who commit especially brutal types of violent murders are given a harsher penalty vs someone who may have killed in the heat of the moment. This is probably as fair as you can get, since some crimes obviously shouldn’t get the same heavy had as others.
Sentencing is done within the limit of the law and, again this is not about him specifically.
You can’t sentence someone to die by a thousand cuts because that is cruel. Which violates the Constitution. Why is this not cruel? Because it’s faster?
Sentencing is done within the limit of the law and, again this is not about him specifically.
Right. And the limit of the law, in this case, is lethal injection.
You can’t sentence someone to die by a thousand cuts because that is cruel. Which violates the Constitution. Why is this not cruel? Because it’s faster?
I don’t make up the rules, man. But you still haven’t said what would be the ideal in this situation.
Let him spend the rest of his life in jail (something he did not want, and already tried to kill himself over), set him free, or “other”?
You’d still have to consider the victims in this decision, so I’m curious to know how you’d do it.
Right. And the limit of the law, in this case, is lethal injection.
Which is cruel. Even if he specifically wants it. For reasons I explain.
I don’t make up the rules, man. But you still haven’t said what would be the ideal in this situation.
The ideal would be to do what every other civilized country on the planet does and not execute people. Even Anders Breivik wasn’t executed and he killed 77 people, many of them children. And no one in Norway who had any real influence seriously discussed bringing back the death penalty just for him. Because it is cruel.
Even SCOTUS decided it was cruel and halted it until they reversed their decision.
There’s a reason why medical professionals do not assist with executions.
I hate to break it to you, but the article quite literally says that “medical team members” were responsible for assisting in getting the IV line into Creech.
Harvard also says that physicians do assist (SOURCE)
And even this cardiologist says it’s better that they do than not, even though he is against capital punishment.
It’s certainly a debated topic in the realm of ethics, no doubt, but it still happens.
But getting back to my question:
If medically assisted suicide is not cruel, and Creech requested that he wanted to die via lethal injection (medically assisted suicide, since it was at his request), where do we have a problem?
The problem is largely the structure of our democracy. The left shows up, they showed up more in the last decade than they ever have. And we’re still sliding backward.
Because the way our idiotic system works, the number of people that show up matter less than the zip code they show up in.
I’d love to see what a liberal asshole politician would look like, but i can’t see it working out today. As much as the right blows wokeism out of proportion, PC culture is still a thing in a lot of liberal areas, and if you’re not PC as a liberal politician I imagine you’ll offend the more sensitive parts of your own base. Didn’t Bernie Sanders get hit with some of that? And he wasn’t even that assholeish, he just showed a spine.
Ilhan Omar’s treatment of a woman asking for her political support in opposition to female genital mutilation was pretty close to being a liberal asshole politician (or it revealed her to be trying to have her cake and eat it; namely, that she takes positions designed to get liberal support, and simultaneously strategically acts like a regressive when it comes to FGM to get support from African hijabis and other Islamists).
I’m openly curious how well a “liberal” minded individual who isn’t afraid to be an asshole would be received.
Speaking from experience here, people will actively, and sometimes collectively, attack you for it. They’ll gang up on you online. They’ll openly and often violently bully you in real life. They’ll even abuse the legal system to get rid of you if they are angry enough at you.
Being an asshole towards shitty people (and the vast majority of humans are shitty people, myself included) is very VERY enlightening on how our rights and our laws are just a thin veneer covering what really governs our lives, and that is our feelings. Most humans could give a fuck less about logic, facts or the truth; they only care about their emotions and what they want because they are only connected to the real world through their emotions, not their minds.
Humans are no better than base animals and being willing to be a horrifying House-level dick towards those you think are deserving demonstrates this, really handily.
It doesn’t surprise me that poor young man was forced to go to an alternate school where the diploma he’ll get won’t be as respected by the colleges he’ll apply to. He probably told them off for being so blatantly racist and, in their hurt, they kicked him out.
Are we kowtowing to a miniscule minority? The only kowtowing I personally observe are academic institutions within states with GOP-dominated legislatures and courts. K-12 schools in progressive areas within such states have to tread carefully to keep the man off their back, and public universities have to carefully craft their language relating to research and programs. But largely it’s a semantic game, where the substance doesn’t change but the language used is toned down to avoid attention of asshats. Similar to any research related to human sexuality when there’s a Republican president in the White House and the NIS/NIH leadership is dominated by GOP appointees - they don’t change the research, but they absolutely rework the language used to describe the project.
I saw an article from ars that tracked the AI company down, it’s registered to the same office as the lawyer, and immediately started advertising this case bragging about it being used in an actual trial, no mention of how much it fucked up and the client was guilty.
He’s got a pretty good shot at this, and the lawyer should 100% face consequences. Even if he just used it, but especially if he owns the AI company he used. Doubly so for not disclosing the connection or informing the client it was being used.
But how do you tell if the AI performed worse or better than the lawyer. What is the bar here for competence. What if it was a losing case regardless and this is just a way to exploit the system for a second trial.
I don’t know about this particular lawyer, but I have heard that some lawyers will try novel court strategies, knowing that it’s a win-win situation. If the strategy works, then their clients benefit, and if the strategy doesn’t work, their clients get an appeal for having ineffective counsel where they normally wouldn’t have an appeal.
If a client gets an appeal for ineffective counsel how is that counsel not brought up before the bar for review? That seems like a death knell for a lawyer.
Not sure if there is a procedure for when a lawyer is practicing, I have never heard of a bar referral after a ruling on a motion for ineffective assistance in NY, but I have heard of retiring attorneys landing on the grenade so to speak and writing affidavits claiming that anything they may have touched in the slightest was somehow deficient, spoiled or tainted by their involvement if it can get a shot at more billable work/appeal.
People don’t generally get sanctioned for making honest mistakes. I didn’t say that a lawyer would tank the case on purpose, just that they’d try a new strategy. If no lawyers were allowed to try new strategies without facing penalties, that also seems like a bad system.
In my opinion, how good the AI performed is irrelevant. What is is the fact that an AI was used instead of the lawyer.
If it is proven that the lawyer used what the AI delivered verbatim then it doesn’t matter how good that text was. The client has the right to have a lawyer, not an AI pretending to be a lawyer.
Autocorrect does single words and you usually review each word. Something like ChatGPT will generate an entire document for you, it’s up to you if you want to verify the correctness of everything in there, which most people don’t.
I think its a good use. I think the idiotic thing is how it was used. It sounds like he didn’t validate it after which might just be unfamiliar with using new tech. Might be a lawyer looking to get a new trial. Might be just pure incompetence. But I still think its a good use if used correctly
Well, the lawyer gave interviews after his client was guilty. Bragging about how instead of spending hours on it he only spent “seconds” and that the AI would mean he could have a lot more clients and make a lot more money.
So, it’s going to be pretty hard for him to now argue he put in just as much effort.
But that is like saying instead of spending hours on an essay I cut the time in half with ms word. Its just a tool. If the lawyer produced arguments with it and reviewed it then what’s the issue. And tbjs still doesn’t determine if the work presented was good or not.
But in all seriousness I think we all need a pocket lawyer.
Its one of those things that I think causes a ton if inequality. I think its too early but definitely in our lives we could all have a bunch of services in our pocket that are difficult to access now. But that’s not going to happen if we don’t reject this stuff as idiotic.
That’s irrelevant. The AI is not licensed to practice law; so if the lawyer didn’t perform any work to check the AI output, then then the AI was the one defending the client and the lawyer was just a mouthpiece for the AI.
But is it a mistrial if the lawyer uses autocorrect?
If the lawyer reviewed the output and found it acceptable then how can you argue it was practicing law. I can write an argument I wantm feed it to AI to correct and improve and iterate through the whole thing. Its just a robust auto correct.
But is it a mistrial if the lawyer uses autocorrect?
No, that’s a bad question. Autocorrect takes your source knowledge and information as input and makes minor corrections to spelling and suggestions to correct grammar. It doesn’t come up with legal analysis on its own, and any suggestions for grammar changes should be scrutinized by the licensed professional to make sure the grammar changes don’t affect the argument.
And your second statement isn’t what happened here. If the lawyer had written an argument and then fed it to AI to correct and improve, then that would have the basis of starting with legal analysis written from a licensed professional. In this case, the lawyer bragged that he spent only seconds on this case instead of hours because the AI did everything. If he only spent seconds, then he very likely didn’t start the process with writing his own analysis and then feeding it to AI; and he likely didn’t review the analysis that was spit out by the AI.
This is an issue that is happening in the medical world, too. Young doctors and med students are feeding symptoms into AI and asking for a diagnosis. That is a legitimate thing to use AI for as long as the diagnosis that gets spit out is heavily scrutinized by a trained doctor. If they just immediately take the outputs from AI and apply the standard medical treatment for that without double checking whether the diagnosis makes sense, then that isn’t any better than me typing my symptoms into Google and looking at the results to diagnose myself.
I watched the legal eagle video about another case where they submitted documents straight from an LLM with hallucinated cases. I can agree that’s idiotic. But if there are a ton of use cases for these things in a lot of profession’s that I think these types of incidents might leave people assuming that using it is idiotic.
My concern is that I think there’s a lot of people trying to convince people to be afraid or suspicious of something that is very useful because they might be threatened either their career or skills are now at risk of being diminished and so they come up with these crazy stories.
Yeah I feel like this is the same as if the lawyer had used a crystal ball to decide how to handle a case. If he lied to clients about it or was also selling crystal ball reading services that seems pretty bad.
The entire US culture that the world sees is a lie. Anyone who lives or has visited is aware, but all these other people watch movies and think American is some magical land.
Nah, wealth is just built on slavery and opression.
Modern day slavery in jails and low wages tied to healthcare.
I’m planning on starting the emigration process within the next few years because it’s starting to become obvious that the US will never get its shit together. Too many selfish hypocrites holding things back. I understand that the grass isn’t always greener, but I’m confident that it will at least taste better with those sweet sweet European social services.
Specifically, it seems the school was explicitly told to target a single student in order for opening a way for the Governor to challenge the CROWN act in courts. It’s pure political maneuvering. Picking scapegoats and destroying individuals to advance racists agendas.
It sounds like there have been a few other code of conduct violations and the schools issue with his hair style was the final straw. Who knows if the previous “violations of the code” were also rooted in racism, but either way, a hair style should never be the ultimate reason someone is expelled unless they’ve purposefully shaved an offensive slurr into their hair.
Looks like it’s part of a uniform requirement. It’s part of the “make them all look the same, that will stop bad behavior”.
Public school shouldn’t be that way and it’s stupid in general. I went to “management school” for most of my middle school years and they did that to stop kids from fighting over colors and shit. Kinda made sense there though because we were all “bad apples”.
They are being authoritarian, likely your country was also under an authoritarian regime in the past based on what you’re saying. Systems of economy are kinda separate
Not remotely communist nor were the folks in "your country" communists regardless of what anyone claims. Always apply the "Is North Korea really a Democracy" test to any such labeling.
Yes it should. The school administration answers to elected officials who represent the tax payers/voters. If the community doesn’t like spending money on racist bullshit they should vote for someone with a god-damned lick of sense.
There is no higher power coming to decide things for us, it’s only us.
A good trial attorney can explain complex and even uncomfortable things to random people in an engaging way that anyone can understand. Don’t have to rely on the jury’s ability to understand something for themselves, just their ability to learn, and the lawyer’s ability to inform.
By implementing a hair policy that excludes styles and lengths which are clearly a part of black culture and a way of expressing identity in America, the policy is racist. Whether or not the intent was racism, it still has the effect, making it a racist policy. It can also be discriminatory towards queer people and other cultures.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that any hair that is ‘relatively long’, ‘not geometrical’, or ‘unnatural color or variation’ is “clearly part of black culture.”
Good thing that’s not what I said. The policy doesn’t exclude all black hairstyles, but many of the hairstyles that would be excluded are sources of cultural/personal identity for black Americans.
it doesn’t seem to be written to target any particular culture
Literally what I spent my first comment explaining - it doesn’t have to be written to target a specific culture to be a racist policy. Oppression is not determined by the intent of the oppressor, but by the lived experiences of the oppressed.
That’s the issue with systemic racism. It’s designed to not look particularly racist until you examine in detail the things it effects. Many traditional black hair styles are going to violate some portion of that rule. Dreads almost certainly need to be longer and afros probably wouldn’t fly, for example. Most typical white styles are fine though.
The word you were searching for is sexist. I’ve been saying since the initial article that this might be unconstitutional under Bostock v. Clayton County.
I don’t think it’s racism tbh. I went to a Texas highschool and they tried to make me cut my hair when I was younger. I am biracial and never did I consider it racial. Is it a dumb rule? Yes. It was created during the hippy era as a stand of some sort.
Barbers Hill Independent School District prohibits male students from having hair extending below the eyebrows, ear lobes or top of a T-shirt collar, according to the student handbook. Additionally, hair on all students must be clean, well-groomed, geometrical and not an unnatural color or variation. The school does not require uniforms.
Land of the fucking free.
Call me when the HOA allows you to plant clover on the front lawn.
The article mentions some concerns about still allowing HOAs to require homeowners to submit plans for approval, but in my experience just mentioning the state law is enough to get any denial overturned.
I know the Western world still isn’t into it, but should be allowed to wear masks if they’re sick or trying to prevent illness. Like they do in Asian countries.
This is how america is destroying its youth and their future just because they refuse to comply with their racist demands. This is how the entire world sees america.
Well have fun judging an entire country based on a shit tier school in one of our most shit tier red states. What utopia free of all racism are you from?
aol.com
Top