Which isn't to say It's unique to America, only from my experience a lot of Americans think their country has moved on from those days when in actual fact, racism is alive and kicking.
The fact that you had news reporters and even Dawkins going after him was embarrassing and sad.
When I was 14 I hung out with (Caucasian) kids that lit things on fire in the park.
AFAIK, all Dawkins said was that he didn't build a clock. Which he didn't, he took a circa 1980s Radio Shack clock out of its case and mounted it in a pencil box.
Apparently trivially verifiable facts are discriminatory now?
This whole thing stinks. I've seen nothing in either the police reports, the words of the involved people, or any hard, objective facts that indicate that this is a matter of anything other than garden variety school administrative stupidity.
It's a valid design/art form.
I would absolutely say that Dawkins was in fact "going after him" and being an asshole, even if he probably didn't fully understand why (but that makes the whole situation even sadder, that a scientist so visible to the public would be clueless about how to engage kids about science and engineering).
Don't forget that Dawkins said that Islamophobia is a 'non-word'[0].
Dawkins was being an asshole, and he definitely knew why. Ignoring Ahmed Mohamed's religion and race and pretending like it's not relevant doesn't change the fact that this entire incident is inextricably linked to the fact that he is Muslim and not white.
[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-def...
Based on what proof?
There are various forms of malice and incompetence that can explain the official acts at the basis of the incident, so while there is certainly plenty of reason to think that might be a significant factor, I think its far from clear that it is.
The responses to the incident from various circles certainly provide plenty of evidence of both racism and Islamophobia, but I don't think its fair to say that it is unambiguously the case that the whole incident boils down to that (though I don't think its particularly unlikely.)
Kids get suspended for less in schools, now -- racism or not. It's easier (and more likely) to explain these outcomes through hardened, zero-tolerance policies.
>When I was 14 I hung out with (Caucasian) kids that lit things on fire in the park.
And...I'm assuming you didn't get caught because you used discretion and weren't doing things in a controlled setting (e.g. classroom) or putting others at risk.
IME, zero-tolerance policies are highly-selectively enforced; they are quite convenient for administrators who want to act arbitrarily, because lack of action is less likely to be challenged if it doesn't lead to someone else getting injured, but any time action is taken (however flimsy the justification) the nest of zero-tolerance policies for (for drugs, including anything that could loosely be interpreted as associated with drug paraphernalia or drug culture; for weapons and violence, including anything that could loosely be interpreted as being suggestive of, related to, a simulation of, etc., a weapon or violent act; etc.) provide a convenient excuse for any response disproportionate to the substance of the act.
Zero-tolerance policies aren't an alternative explanation to administrators acting arbitrarily including based on racial, religious, or other prejudiced animus, they are an enabling mechanism for that arbitrary action.
What you have right now is the buzzfidization of the internet discourse - identity politics is easy traffic and money, so everyone is doing it.
You can legislate a sane school/legal environment that removes the arbitrary and capricious power from possible bigots, overreactors, and other adult bullies.
Actually, most of the early response from public critics -- and most of the major-actor outreach to counter the official sanction directed at the student -- seemed to focus largely on the lack of sensibility of the administration and it being a failure of authoritarianism stifling harmless youthful experimentation. There was some speculation about the official reaction potentially having racist motivation, but the issue becoming principally about racial and/or religious bigotry really kind of took off as defenders of the actions by the school (or those just wanting to bash Obama because politics) started arguing that the student must have been guilty of doing something wrong, even if it wasn't actually building a bomb, because of his families background.
According to the district documents, the policies for a "look-alike weapon" are the same as those for a weapon -- see:
http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Do...
http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/367?filename=FOD(LEGAL)....
Zero-tolerance policies do disproportionally damage students of color (like many policies in most countries...) but they're perfectly capable of damaging white students as well, and it's almost certainly false to say that if a nerdy, technophillic white kid brought a strange device to a Texas school, he wouldn't be arrested for possessing a "look-alike" bomb.
1. Something like this: http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/orange-plastic-water-pistol-i...