in my school theres a clause that says the principal (we call him hitler) can change any puishment for anything he wants
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Barbie Is a Lesbian' Shirt Suit Settled
- Thread starter iGav
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
G4scott said:
Isn't the problem with this way of handling things that it creates a tyranny of troublemaking students? Say I like to pick arguments with people (for the sake of argument
. Say you wear a "Barbie is a Lesbian" t-shirt and I disrupt class to start an argument with you about your t-shirt, because I think it offends my sexual mores. Then the teacher kicks you out. Fine. Say, the next day, someone (else) wears a Greenpeace t-shirt, and I pick an argument with them because I think that Greenpeace undervalues the plight of the blue-collar worker, all to easily pushing to shut down industrial operations when the result is massive layoffs. Fine. Then, the next day, I pick an argument with someone (else) who is wearing an N*Sync t-shirt because I think that Justin Timberlake is a loser who would never have a hit if the Neptunes weren't backing him up. Fine. Then, the next day, I pick a fight with someone (else) because they're wearing Diesel jeans, and Diesel is so 1990s. Is the problem what all these other kids are wearing, or my attitude?
Don't get me wrong -- I see value in your argument. If it's objective and consistent, i.e. wearing uniforms, I think it can be a good idea. If it's just reactionary and they ban whatever causes trouble, I think it sends bad messages about responsibility to the kids in the school...
I dont see how this is proper wear for school. If the girl is proud to be a lesbia, the it's her business. But the shirt is a bit much, atleast for school.
1macker1 said:
because law provides her freedom of speech, and it was being trampled here. It may seem trivial to some people, but it's the little cases like this that make it hard to enforce freedom of speech-- it's easier to roll over and look the other way, than to do what's right. But then, they don't let her wear the shirt, next we know the administration is scrutinizing every t-shirt being worn, pretty soon kids are only allowed to express opinions in keeping with the school administration. If that's what you want for your child, to be a mindless drone, protected from any diversity, send them to a private school. Public schools are only part-way about book learning, they're also the place that kids learn about society, and learn to interact, and share ideas... how to function as people. Functional people do not shut down every time they see a t-shirt that is outside of their opinion. they ignore it, which is what kids in this situation *did*.
i agree 100% with mkrishnan, the problem here isn't free speech-- it's people trying to cap that speech. That's when all of the problems start, and the courts get involved.
paul
mactastic said:
Yea that too much too. These kids should have to wear uniforms, then we wouldn't have these problems.
People should be considerate and think that maybe other don't want to be exposed to such things.
Dippo said:
why not just homeschool them? in fact, if you did it right, you could prevent them from even leaving the home before the age of 18. Make sure they're never "exposed to such things"...
in my world, values were based on what you were taught, not what you were protected from seeing. i guess that changed. it must be that children are far too stupid to realize other people have different beliefs... we must make everything perfectly sterile and sanitary to preserve their fragile little minds.
and they say political correctness has gone too far... if school uniforms were enforced in the name of political correctness, to create a "non-emotionally-hostile" environment (that sounds like a PC-ism), Christians would claim that they're being persecuted, that the liberals struck again.
as any good conservative will tell you, school uniforms are absurd, the government has no business meddling there. A minor's apparel is the concern of their respective parents.
paul
Dippo said:
*blink* And I'd rather not be exposed to war or poverty or fundamentalists or homophobia or The Popular Crowd(tm) or Justin Timberlake or mustard. And heaven preserve me from grapefruit. And I'm sure most high school kids don't want to be exposed to homework, and I would have given dearly not to be exposed to gym class.
But you know what? We don't get that choice.
mkrishnan said:
Nah, a nonissue. Ken came out years ago back with the Earring Magic...
paulwhannel said:
School is a place to learn, and not a place to display controversial and disruptive views. When some shows up with the "All gays are going to burn in hell" T-shirt, I am sure you would want to send them home. How is that any different?
Yeah i think a "FLIRT" shirt would be too much for a CHILD in school. The 'DIVA' shirt isn't bad. You don't have complete freedom of speech in school. Not in high school, not in college. Trying going to class and saying "F**k", or "S**t", and see how quick your freedom of speech is revoked. I think there is a line and she crossed it. Who's to say what that line is, not me.
mactastic said:
1macker1 said:
I don't know how many ways i can say this. Yes, you do. Entirely. Protected by law, Guaranteed by the Constitution, upheld by the courts, unabridged by legislation. complete freedom of speech. The only two cases where this is not true, are obscenities ("flirt" and "lesbian" are not obscenities, by the way) and disruption. That was not the case here.
Dippo, kids have worn shirts like that, a kid wore a shirt with a similar sentiment when I was in high school, very pointedly at me. However the message was not threatening, or obscene, so I had no problem with it (besides the annoyance factor, but i'm annoyed equally as much by people that wear Tommy clothes, so whatever)...
Schools, as I said, are only halfway about book learning-- Social interaction is the other component, which has been recognized many times over. If you send your child to public school to learn textbooks and nothing else, you're sending them to a place designed to teach them more than that. That's why there's private schools and homeschooling, for parents that are terrified that their children will be corrupted into godless communists by hearing other opinions. You want control, you pay for it-- I'm not footing the bill for your kid to *not be offended*.
paul
Public schools is not the place for learning other things than book learning. I dont know when this all started, but it should end. Social interaction is a part of school, but to a certain point. Just because a person attend public school, he/she should not have other people's values shoved into their face. If you want respect for what you believe in, there are tasteful was going about it.
mkrishnan said:Is the problem what all these other kids are wearing, or my attitude?
In this case, you should be the one kicked out of school.
I don't care who you are, but when you are in school (high school and below), you do not have the freedom of speech that you have outside of class. You are there to learn. If your speech disrupts class, or keeps others from learning, it's going to be silenced, because that type of behavior shouldn't be tolerated.
I'm all for freedom of speech, but the second it interferes with any of my rights, or the rights of others, I'm going to do something about it. Students in a public school have the right to an education, and I think that that's more valuable to them at that point than freedom of speech. That's what college is for.
1macker1 said:
Ok, lets start by cutting the football teams. Fair enough? I assume you aren't a college basketball fan?
Ok, no proms either. Nor after school clubs or any of the festivities leading up to HS graduation.
Agreed. So stop shoving your values into that girl's face and let her wear her shirt.
G4scott said:
Huh, looks like i have to say it again. I'll make this one for the record:
students DO have freedom of speech.
There is no argument about that, it's simply legal precident. Period. If you want to argue that they *shouldn't*, go ahead, but they DO.
The constitution guarantees freedom of speech. it does NOT guarantee that you won't be offended. So, even if you ARE offended by something, your rights have not been infringed on.
I'm serious, if you don't like it, go for private school. You simply cannot run public schools as some sort of religious institution, nor can you make public schools cater to a religious population. That's why the school MUST stay out of all matters religious. Lowest common denominator, which is pure unadulterated LIBERTY.
Thank god there are people out there willing to stand up for YOUR liberties, when you're not. I'd hate to see what kind of world you complacent naive people came up with. You can't see the implications of your own actions one step ahead of you, you just do what's pragmatic for the situation at hand. Amazingly enough, it's how EVERY single dictator in history took power.
Public schools are about learning society. A social structure is formed, and within the mini-society, instruction and education occurs. To deny that is sheer folly, again if you want them to be shielded from the world, homeschool them.
You people act like your ability to instruct your children is being taken away. It's not. You can still give them morals and values any way you want, you can teach them that girls who wear "flirt" shirts are hellbound whores, you can teach them whatever you want. But you can NOT decide what other children do. you are completely stripping all responsibility for children from parents, including yourself-- Then you'll be surprised when, after mentioning being at church on a weekend, your daughter is suspended for making religious commentary. Or, how about a first-grade girl that is excited to bring in cupcakes for her birthday, to be expelled for "perpetuating a derragetory gender role"... Or the children that can't play sports anymore because it's too violent. You have to remember, if you're going to inflict values on a child from the administration, it won't necessarily be YOUR values that are inflicted...
Leave parenting to the parents. Leave schools alone. There are plenty of other places they need to be helped, this is not one of them-- How about you spend some of this time worrying about how the no-child-left-behind-act is going to mean LESS money for supplies for your child, or how teachers are paid so abysmally that there will soon be a shortage. Instead, we have to play "fashion police" and inspect kid's t-shirts. It'd ludicrous. Again, conservatives should be outraged.
paul
hm this reminds me of the janet jackson overreaction...
i find the tshirt funny (IMHO of course)
i've seen worse ("BRING DICH UM !" translate: "KILL YOURSELF !" in 15cm bold,black letters on neon-green shirt, and of course more insulting things, and no problems with that)
we had 7-8 2x1 meter swimsuit posters in our classroom( in 8th grade up to 12 grade) ..sure some teacher didn't like them but they were tolerant enough to leave them where they were
i find the tshirt funny (IMHO of course)
i've seen worse ("BRING DICH UM !" translate: "KILL YOURSELF !" in 15cm bold,black letters on neon-green shirt, and of course more insulting things, and no problems with that)
we had 7-8 2x1 meter swimsuit posters in our classroom( in 8th grade up to 12 grade) ..sure some teacher didn't like them but they were tolerant enough to leave them where they were
paulwhannel said:
Sorry to hear that. I tell you that kids can be the cruelest.
paulwhannel said:
Most people aren't going to be able to afford private education, no matter how much they want it for their kids. There are plenty of problems with public education, the least of which is this issue.
The only real solution to this is to privatize public education!
I think school vouchers are a good start...
paulwhannel said:
Ah, no, that's wrong...
In 1969, Tinker v. Des Moines established that a school cannot restrict students? freedom of expression unless it can prove that the speech materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.?
In 1998, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court decided that administrators have the right to censor speech on educational grounds. Hazelwood, which concerned the right of students to publish controversial articles in a school newspaper, concluded with the decision that the administration could censor any article it felt was inappropriate or harmful.
In the LaVine v. Blaine School District case in Seattle, Washington, in which LaVine was expelled for 17 days for writing a poem about killing 28 classmates and then himself. He handed in the poem to his teacher for critique and wound up getting thrown out of school.
Ah, but u dont learn to play football in school. And you are not forced to play any type of sports.
.
I'm not forcing my values on her, i'm sure the hetrosexual students didnt have a "Ken is straight" shirts on. When you wear or do something for attention, you usually get it. But who know if it's going to be positive or negative.
Proms are of no use. You are not forced to attend any non-educational events. Unless your parents force youmactastic said:Ok, lets start by cutting the football teams. Fair enough? I assume you aren't a college basketball fan?
GO VOLS!
Ok, no proms either. Nor after school clubs or any of the festivities leading up to HS graduation.
Agreed. So stop shoving your values into that girl's face and let her wear her shirt.
.I'm not forcing my values on her, i'm sure the hetrosexual students didnt have a "Ken is straight" shirts on
. When you wear or do something for attention, you usually get it. But who know if it's going to be positive or negative.
AFAIK the courts have allowed restrictions on speech in public primary and secondary schools if the speech is disruptive to the learning process. Thus the bans on gang apparel. You have a limited right to free speech in public schools, but not as broad as you do in other venues.
But they might have had a 'Hooters' shirt on, right?1macker1 said:I'm not forcing my values on her, i'm sure the hetrosexual students didnt have a "Ken is straight" shirts on
Dippo said:
Thank you! finally someone interested in debating my actual points. The Tinker v Des Moines is the one i was referring to earlier, which held that students have freedom of speech. The 1998 case was basically an asterisk to the 1969 case, saying that some topics simply aren't appropriate for school-paid publications-- Leading to two points. First, it only applies to school run publications and communications, not to students on a personal level. Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier has nothing to do with a student's right to speech, just how the school can publish or refuse it. Secondly, it instituted the idea that if one side of an argument was shown in a school-based publication, the opposing side must also be heard-- Borrowing an example from the ACLU, that means that if a student writes an opinion piece condemning premarital sex, the school is obligated to publish an article praising premarital sex, should a student submit it of course. The idea here is that school can't use publications to enforce opinion as fact-- And morals/values are opinion, not fact.
Lastly, LaVine v Blaine was a matter of public safety, and safety is instrumental in providing education. Under the Tinker ruling, LaVine's writings were considered to be a hinderance to education... The ruling didn't really set much precident of it's own. Aside from being a hinderance, his writings could also be viewed as a threat of physical harm, which is also not allowed as part of free-speech. But, we've seen several times since then, that violent writings are in some cases protected by free speech-- Including a student that recently wrote a violent letter in his own home, which was then stolen and distributed at school. The school did not have the right to expell him in that case, because he wasn't on school property. But it was about killing a classmate, specifically an ex-girlfriend.
So, we see that students' free speech is not entirely without restrictions (neither is adult FOS, for that matter), but is overall still free. None of the cases above would affect the case in hand, because she did not use a school publication OR threaten someone OR hinder education for others. What she did was express a viewpoint at odds with the administration, which she is protected in doing--
paul
They still have PE in schools today? And who's to say she didnt hinder anyone's education. I'm sure she distracted some students.