HS STUDENT SUSPENDED FOR EDWARDS T-SHIRT

HS STUDENT SUSPENDED FOR EDWARDS T-SHIRT
jandopete in Action
9/24/2007

My family would like our fellow Edwards supporters to know that one of his high school supporters in Texas, my son, has received an IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION FOR WEARING A JOHN EDWARDS T-SHIRT TO SCHOOL, having been told that it is in violation of the new school dress code. Clearly, this violates his protected right to free speech, and is the subject of a federal suit that he anticipates filing within the week, should the situation not be resolved to our satisfaction. We called the campaign to notify, but (understandably) had trouble getting through to anyone who might make the Senator aware of how deeply his supporters feel about his candidacy in Texas. I think this issue would interest Senator Edwards and his campaign staff. We ask that fellow Edwards supporters make both the campaign and their own school districts aware of the fact that political speech does not stop at the schoolhouse door!

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/24/121029/057

the family for embracing their supposed right to free speech.

At my school, all students are to wear either navy/white/kacki polo style shirts and pants of one of the three colors. NO EXCEPTIONS>>>


they know this from enrollment on

even their t-shirts under the polos must be one of the three colors...



it is not a violation of their free speech or an attempt to stiffle their individualism..

it IS school policy to stop violence and gang identification

we are also a magnet school. They choose to attend

Very strict dress code, and I support that, in what would otherwise be a school riddled with gang colors and attire.

could of fooled me.

Dress codes exist to supply the military and corporations with robots.

I'm guessing you didn't grow up in a neighborhood where an Angels baseball cap or a Raiders sweatshirt could get you killed by some punks in cars with guns.

Dress codes exist for a greater purpose than your stated opinion and relaxing them once they're in place is a slippery slope.

Your premise is that negative behavior can be prevented by changing the environment. Show me a study. Show when and where it took place and what the control group was.

I just don't see what good it does since people vary considerably in appearance naturally. Banning clothing options just leads to the sensitivity to visual differences becoming finer. Ergo, accomplishing nothing.

It's an opinion piece.

If the dress-code cannot make a person a better person, how can a uniform (a dress code) make a person a robot for the military or the corporations? Inconsistent, at best.

If only everyone had a gun no one would ever be killed or wounded...

Anyone who needs the trendiest fashions to be an "individual" is already a robot...

Wait..... You're serious?

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Plenty of threads to comment on in the course of discussion.

School uniforms/dress code? I have no problem with the concept. In fact, I think it's a good idea, as it makes everything easier for the parents of school-aged kids in addition to causing one fewer distraction for the kids themselves.

On topic: If someone showed up at my "business casual" workplace in a Che Guevara shirt, I'd send them home to change.

Poor kids, rich kids... you can't tell when they are all wearing the same generic uniform.

...but golly gee, it's convenient that that's one of its effects, isn't it?

Of course it's a suppression of free speech. Not an unreasonable one, IMO, but let's be honest with ourselves.

I think it's possible to argue either side of this...certainly for ME.

I still find it creepy regardless.

I don't see a school dress code as a significant suppression of free speech. Both my kids have dress codes. The youngest is fairly strict: collared shirts in either white, yellow or light blue tucked into pants/skirts/shorts of khaki or navy, belt, shoes with a back (no flip flops). No logos larger than a quarter. My son's dress code is pretty open, but no t-shirts with political sayings or anything that mentions illegal activity or profanity. Within that framework, they manage to express themselves pretty well. My daughter wears the funkiest socks you have ever seen (no sock rules) and my son lives to find ways to get around the profanity thing. He has this t-shirt that says "Pat McCrotch". He gets a kick out wearing it because HE knows what it is really saying, but they can't do anything about it.

As a parent, I like the strict dress code. It makes it a lot easier to buy less expensive clothing without my kid complaining and we can get away with less. Really, five shirts and 3 or 4 bottoms and you can mix and match your way through several weeks.

I just think we should be cautious about limiting speech for the sake of convenience. Clothing is a billboard, or can be, and it's a shame that students lose out in this way.

If we've gotta force 'em into uniforms, let's at least feel guilty about it. :D

They stand because sheep accept them.

Tesha

Schools have the ability to control conduct which is antithetical to an atmosphere of education. Controlling drug references on clothing falls into that. Making sure boys and girls are not baring their ass (or other bits) is required for that, too. The public school I teach at has a dress code that would not preclude the Edwards shirt. Others don't.

Essentially every dress code that is challenged falls
because students don't automagically lose their rights
when they walk through the schoolhouse door.

The only reason schools get away with bullshit dress
codes is that parents are frequently unwilling to
challenge them.

Tesha

but they also don't have the same rights as adults.

Their lockers can be searched without a warrant.

Just the way things are.

which is at least something.

I've had my eye on the Supreme Court for a LONG time and, especially now, it becomes clear that they're be willing to pass over a LOT of things that wouldn't be Constitutional simply because it strokes their ideology.

Will you argue the same thing if this court decided that abortion was illegal?

A locker is space provided for the students personal use, right? They are even provided a way to lock others out of that space. It could be argued that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That argument would probably lose, but couldn't it be argued reasonably? If you are given a room in a house for your personal use, the owner of the house cannot give police permission to search it. I think that might be stretched to cover school lockers.

> I wonder if you could argue that they have an expectation of privacy?

That's been litigated. The answer is "No".

But it is different for the students' personal belongings that
they have with them (rather than being stored in the school's
lockers).

Right now, this is a hot issue here in New Hampshire where
several school systems have decided to start having the
police come in with their drug-sniffing dogs. In several
schools, the students were instructed to place all their
personal belongings on the classroom floor and file out
of the classroom so that the dogs could sniff things over.
The smarter students said "I don't think so" and carried
their belongings out of the classroom. Nothing was done
to these students because they were fully within their
rights to not be searched without probable cause.

Our rights would be a lot safer if:

1. More people knew their rights and

2. More people were willing to "Just say no" to
petty (and not so petty) violations of their rights.

Tesha

He'll have a field day with it!

When will this crap end? Do we have any freakin' rights left? Had the shirt included profanity or a threat, ok, but just a shirt supporting a US candidate for president? What the hell has become of this country?

This is no different.

Most schools, even if they don't have uniforms, forbid t-shirts with any sort of writing on them.

Making this the outrage du jour does nothing but make us look foolish. Seriously.

I am a tenured professor of education, but the infringements on rights in this country is frightening. I cannot help but wonder if the same criteria would hold true if the shirt in question said "support the troops" or some drivel supporting "our commander in chief". I am a firm believer in the ruling that states a student's rights do not end at the schoolhouse door.

"infringements on rights in this country ARE frightening."

And you should also be aware that each school district faces a different set of problems. In Los Angeles, the main problem is gang activity. Having all students dressed the same goes a long way toward keeping the lid on this activity. Parents are asked to sign off on dress codes; as legal guardians, what they say goes. It's not an infringement on the student's rights. They are not adults. Their guardians have the right to make them wear uniforms.

I did not know we were discussing school uniforms.

A dress code ensures all students are dressed the same, in the sense that they all abide by the same rules and are dressed within a certain margin.

School dress codes have been around for years, uniform or not.

Before uniforms were required in his school, my oldest was sent home for wearing his Led Zeppelin t-shirt. He knew better. I'm the Led-Head that bought him the shirt, and still, he knew better.

The level of education in this country is appalling. Whatever we can do, whatever we can try, to keep the minds of students on their studies, is a-okay with me. And teaching students to follow the rules is equally important.

Whatever we can do, whatever we can try, to keep the minds of students on their studies, is a-okay with me.

When people become obsessed with the ends, the means can become very nasty.

Why do you suppose we have such a problem with gangs and violence in the US?

How much contact do you have with gangs?

Ever had drive-by shootings outside your kid's school? Ever had your kid beat up for his bike?

Obsessed with with the ends my ass. How about obsessed with the search for means to keep your kids alive one more day?

Please.

Then why do you stay there?

So, you think everyone should just move? Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that.


:eyes:

Just think. I have spent nearly 30 years teaching in the urban core and all I have had to do is "just move". Wow. What a revelation!

Paint it up with big smiley faces, and drive through Watts, Compton, Downtown Long Beach whilst telling everyone... Your problems are solved! Move away from here! All are welcome to move! All are welcome to move!

That had to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read here. I'm series. I feel like such a moran. Move. How simple is that? Let's not worry about where people can afford to live... they should just move! Don't like the neighborhood? Move! Move my children! Move! Don't like your school? Move sweet babies! Just move!


:eyes:

Such an easy solution! For such a small price!!

:rofl:

My kid goes to a school that has no dress code like that. Hate speech is prohibited, and bathing suits, but I think that is about it. Yet 85% of the kids graduate, the school passes the stupid state tests all the kids have to pass since "no child left behind", and no one's rights are infringed on. Seriously, what kids wear to school is not the root of the problem here, folks.

All it does is teach our kids to believe in authoritarianism, which is one of the main problems we face in this country today. Don't think for yourself. Do what you're told. It's bullshit. Sorry.

:thumbsup:

Got gangs?

There's a huge difference between teaching a child to obey the rules and laws, and teaching them to cower under authorities. We would all be better off if GWB's mom had taught him to follow the rules. If every child is allowed to question authority at every move, instead of being selective in accordance to law, then we are in for big trouble. Generations of kids who think they don't have to follow the rules. Oh, wait. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Gangs are that way, aren't they?

It's not all black and white. There are grey areas to everything. Teaching a kid that the world is all black and white does them a huge disservice.

the degree of discipline necessary for a society to function and knuckling under to authoritarianism.

If no one ever followed ANY rules, then just going to the damn grocery store would be a nightmare. I cannot understand for the life of me why people think that anarchy is such a great thing. Or that ANY rule applied to a group equals a fast slide to a nazi state.

Jesus...we are talking about the goddam school dress code.

What if we all decided not to follow driving rules, just for a day? What if we all decided not to send our kids to school at all?

I agree with your p.o.v. here.

Then proceed to write incorrectly.

Apart from indecent exposure, my public high school didn't have any dress codes and, surprisingly, we never attempted to overthrow the government, sell secrets to the Russians, or tank the economy.

Maybe those were just better times.

(Actually, there's no 'maybe' about it!)

but 1975 is way different than 2007...

How often for the best?

Not enough educating going on in schools today, for starters.

I can't think of a single high school in SW Michigan that had any sort of dress code like the one being talked about here- I graduated in 1993.

And I mean this in the sense that any child from these schools, when confronted by a student from another district away from the general area who had a dress code at their school, would look at them as if they were some strange, new form of creature from Far Away.

That includes writing on shirts, by the way. These harsh codes are new things, in my experience.

Just how old is this practice, anyway?

in 1975. I was not allowed to wear my rock t-shirts to school. My children all went to Long Beach Unified Schools... they were not allowed to wear rock t-shirts either. In fact, when the gang problems got increasingly worse, they were required to wear uniforms, much like those worn by the local parochial schools. My youngest child graduated in 2002. I still have friends with children in both of these school systems. Not much has changed.

in the 70's the VA Supreme Court ruled dress codes unconstitutional. I had to get an ACLU lawyer to convince my high school that it's dress code was in violation of VA law.

So,no they haven't always had the right everywhere to enforce dress codes.

I'm talking schools in Los Angeles here, not VA.

ALWAYS. "Schools have always had the right to have a dress code."

And you didn't quantify it by saying Los Angeles schools.

What the fuck ever.

if you don't write what you mean. You acted like you couldn't understand my comment because you were thinking Los Angeles schools.

I forgot to polish my crystal ball today.

This is a silly issue.

... or he'd probably be on Death Row by now.

To the US Media, anyway...

If so, it has nothing to do with Edwards. Usually, partents sign they agree to a dress code... no logos, no ads of any kind...

Can you spell censure?

:shrug:

Be interesting if this goes to the Supreme Court. Free PR for John Edwards!~
This was predicted when bush got in.

dress code to judge this incidence

:sarcasm:

On a serious note (though it wouldn't surprise me to see this turned into an end-of-quarter donation pitch), I can see why schools don't want kids wearing political t-shirts (as just one type of distracting apparel). You'll have your Edwards t-shirt kids, your Hillary t-shirt kids, your Kucinich t-shirt kids, your Giuliani and Thompson t-shirt kids, and pretty soon you've got a schoolyard brawl. Have a classroom discussion about the candidates and issues, etc., but I understand dress codes.

Call the wambulance for this one...

Here's a press release from the PA ACLU on the matter:

http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/studentstandsupforrighttow.htm

ACLU Helps Student, Parent at North Penn High School Demand Protection for Students' Right of Free Expression

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 18, 2005

LANSDALE, PA - Yesterday Chris Schiano, a student at North Penn High School, and his mother asked the North Penn School Board why it took a threat of suit from the American Civil Liberties Union for the School District to retract its ban on a t-shirt that is critical of President Bush. Their stand for free expression will result in a clarification of school district policy.

Since 1969, when the Supreme Court held that Mary Beth Tinker and her brother could not be disciplined for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, public high school students have had the right to express their political views so long as their conduct does not cause or threaten a material and substantial disruption of school activities. In 2003, the ACLU of Michigan obtained a court order protecting the right of a high school student in Dearborn to wear the same t-shirt for which Chris Schiano was disciplined.

Chris was removed from classes on October 24, 2005 because he wore a shirt that displayed a picture of President Bush over the words "international terrorist." Chris wore the shirt without incident through his three morning classes, but then a security guard in the lunchroom noticed the shirt and demanded that Chris remove it or turn it inside out to hide the message. When Chris refused to do either, he was taken to the administrative office, where he spent the rest of the day.

Lisa Wildman, Chris's mother, later spoke to Principal Burton Hynes, who told her that students are not permitted to wear shirts that are "controversial" or "offensive." Principal Hynes told Ms. Wildman that a shirt that praised the President would have been fine, that a shirt supportive of gay rights would have been discouraged but tolerated, but that Chris's shirt was forbidden because it was "disrespectful to the President." Chris and Lisa contacted the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which demanded that North Penn retract its ban on the shirt. "It is clear that Chris was not disciplined and deprived of class time because he was disruptive, but because the school administrators did not agree with the political views he was expressing," wrote ACLU staff attorney Mary Catherine Roper. "That is not a legitimate basis for banning the shirt." It took ten days - and a threat of immediate litigation - before the school district backed down.

At the North Penn School Board meeting last night, Chris and his mother asked what the Board would do to protect students' rights in the future. "It's the school's job to make a safe place for all students, especially those with unpopular views, whether it be sexual preference, religion, political views, etc. and teach our children that we can disagree, yet get along, " said Lisa Wildman. The Board promised to review the school dress code, and local radio station WNPV 1440 quoted School Board President Vincent Sherpinsky's opinion about Chris's t-shirt: "If you don't like it, don't look at it."

"We are extremely proud of Chris and Lisa for standing up for their rights," said Roper today. "It is everyone's job to defend liberty, because liberty cannot defend itself."

What a dummy... admitting that a shirt praising Bush would have been okay but Chris' shirt wasn't?

I'm glad he was so stupid--I'm sure that little tidbit made the ACLU's case even easier--but it's a little worrisome that somebody so dumb is in charge of those kids' educations.

in the Tinker case, as well. Although there was no formal policy, the court discussed that student speech supporting the war had been tolerated, it was only speech opposing the war for which suspensions were issued.

it will make him feel good to know the committment your son has.

be it commercial interests, sports interests, church groups or political thought -- no logos or graphics, period.

Plenty of good reasons for it, too -- gang use them for identification, snobs flout their money, to say nothing of how inciteful, demeaning, and offensive some graphics can be . . . the list is seemingly endless, and rather than place the administration in the untenable position of enforcing personal morals or beliefs, the district abolished the potential for a problem by banning everything.

So I'd have to know a lot more about this situation before I'm going to get my dander up, let alone become incensed.

Ah, America!

Not to mention a plaid shirt that is a clan tartan?

The ACLU has represented students before.

DES MOINES -- The Iowa Civil Liberties Union today blasted school officials for threatening to punish two teenage girls who wore anti-abortion T-shirts to school. The group also offered to assist the students in their quest to continue wearing the shirts at school.

"These students had their free speech rights violated, and the ICLU stands ready to defend them," said Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ICLU. "This appears to be a clear case of government abuse of power, and it must be stopped."

Roosevelt High School students Tamera Chandler, 18, and her sister, Brittany Chandler, 15, this week wore T-shirts displaying a picture of a fetus and the words, "Abortion Kills Kids." School officials apparently told them to cover up the shirts or face punishment.

The ICLU said that the fact that these girls attend Roosevelt High School is particularly ironic because the school was the site of a famous 1960s lawsuit involving the right of students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. That lawsuit, Tinker v. Des Moines, was also brought by the ICLU.

The 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker, which affirmed the right of students to wear the armbands, to this day is invoked to protect the right of students like the Chandlers to express their views, so long as their speech does not "materially and substantially interfere with the learning environment."

"This case clearly demonstrates the beauty of the First Amendment," Stone said. "A case brought by the ICLU in the 1960s to defend the rights of anti-war protesters is being used 35 years later to defend the rights of students who oppose abortion. When you defend the rights of one person to speak, you defend the rights of all to speak."

Other ACLU affiliates across the country are currently involved in similar cases. Earlier this month in Missouri, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a 15-year-old student who was punished for wearing a homemade T-shirt displaying the message, "I Support Gay Rights!" And in Florida, the Broward County School Board agreed last week to amend school rules after the ACLU came to the defense of a student who was punished for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt.

The ICLU, which staunchly defends the reproductive rights of women, also has a long track record of defending the rights of anti-abortion and conservative Christian groups.

In 1990, the Iowa affiliate of the ACLU successfully represented an anti-abortion group in a dispute with Iowa City over an unconstitutional parade ordinance. In 1995, a conservative Christian activist, Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo, had her rights vindicated by the ICLU in a case involving her free speech rights on public access television. Conservative Christians in Clarke County in 1997 won the right to force a county referendum on gambling after the ICLU took up their case.

In addition, the ICLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in 2002 in support of the right of students in Davenport schools to distribute Christian literature, including Bibles, during non-instructional time. The school eventually backed down and allowed the literature to be distributed.

"When the ACLU and ICLU say we defend everyone's rights, we mean it," said Stone.

For more information on the ACLU's work defending religious liberty, go to /religion/public/16254res20050302.html.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html

but I remember we were ALL wearing KENNEDY buttons in 1960 (of course, it was a Catholic school :7)

If they're allowed to do that, they can still show their support for their candidate...

In 1960, we wouldn't even walk across the neighbor's lawn... now kids scribble on the neighbor's walls... times have changed.

If this was in fact a violation of the dress code, then it's not a free speech issue. Schools have the right to implement dress codes.

We need a sigh smilie.

"Oh, it's been going on for years" and "dress codes help prevent gang violence."

I remember when we used to argue about school uniforms not long after I got out of high school. The idea always itched a bit. I can understand all the ideas--that it would help prevent gang violence, and that uniforms would be good for students who didn't have money to keep up with the latest fashions.

Deep down it always bugged me though. Those are convenient excuses, but, in the end, it does teach people to stifle free expression...to avoid causing a "disruption." I'm afraid one of the reasons some of the young are so "apathetic" and "apolitical" is they've been taught that free expression isn't necessarily a "good" thing.

I don't know. When I went to high school I was known for the beer shirt I wore...a beer I'd never even tasted. I just liked the moose emblem.

Now the argument is "well, it's been that way for a long time now" and "there are good reasons for stifling free expression."

Ugh. It's a good thing we've learned to accept little things like this along the way for all the "right" reasons, isn't it? Makes the new intrusions all that less painful.

:shrug:

Might make you see things differently.

Perspective is everything.

:banghead:

Not this shit again.

There's always a facile excuse. Always. "It'll make us safer. Our kids safer."


Okay, then. On to the next thing.

I had three going to very tough neighborhoods... one was stabbed with a scissors... now, say again?

It was a very expensive Dodger jersey... good thing she had another t-shirt underneath.

There was a kid in her class who was beat up and had his expensive Nike shoes stolen from him too.

Don't ever let a kid wear Raiders stuff to LA City Schools... that's asking for trouble.

or just at school. When you get right down to it, that would make the kids MUCH much safer. No civvies whatsoever. Ever. Otherwise they could be gunned down or robbed for their sneakers any time they leave the house.

School is where the gang activity is centered, not at home.

Try again... :eyes:

How many kids do you have attending inner-city schools?

chained to the apron strings their whole life until they're 18.

I don't have any kids in the inner city schools, but my niece attended one until moving to Wisconsin last year.

I live on Tacoma's Hilltop neighborhood, so don't presume to preach to me about inner cities.

Chained to apron strings is not anything close to the reality of teaching one's own children to be constantly aware of their surroundings and learning to be self-sufficient.

Tacoma? Surely you jest! Have you ever been to Los Angeles? I don't mean Bev Hills, Redondo Beach, etc. I mean areas with schools such as Poly High, or Jordan High. I've been all over WA, Tacoma included. And I am literally LOLing here... Tacoma Hilltop is not even close.

The problem isn't the shirt, nor is the solution to ban it.

Granted, there's a lot more to it than the color of the shirt, but I'll take anything I can get to keep my child even slightly more safe.

If we lived in a real dictatorship.

No gangs, no violence, no freedom..

Granted, there's a lot more to it than the color of the shirt, but I'll take anything I can get to keep my child even slightly more safe.

How many kids do you have attending inner-city schools? How many drive-by shootings have you witnessed? How many guns have you seen taken from school lockers?

There are root causes and there are superficial band-aids. There's no good reason not to employ both when trying to resolve an issue and keep children safe at the same time.

I don't know what kind of utopia you live in, but try sending your kid to a gang infested inner-city school then tell me how foolish I am.

That is the source of about 90% of the violence when you get right down to it.

Just like during alcohol Prohibition..

Answer any of my questions except to answer them with questions of your own.

Have a great delusional life.

But this is Chicago which seems to be heaven-on-Earth compared to your descriptions of Los Angeles. Though what you describe in Los Angeles today does sound very much like Chicago back in the 60s and 70s. My best friend went to a high school where, in the name of protecting the children, they locked all the doors and windows except the main door leading out into the courtyard of the U shaped building. The result: rival gangs set up shop in the two wings of the building shooting at each other and, just for kicks, at all the other kids ducking and dodging their way through the courtyard to leave the building each evening. This went on for weeks before someone with at least a modicum of brains started allowing the kids to depart the school via the back door.

Well into the 80s school shootings in Chicago rated a page 11 story. Frequently did not even make the evening TV news.

:shrug:

and for good reason. Without such rules, kids will wear tee shirts with overt sexual or drug-related messages, not to mention various political and religious messages which will cause arguments between students, and the problem of gang colors and symbols.

Teachers have to waste time sending kids with questionable message tee shirts to the office. I wish I had a dollar for every boy wearing a "Big Johnson" tee shirt I sent to the office, with the boy always saying "It doesn't mean anything bad." Yeah, right.

It doesn't matter who the candidate is, it's the fact that it's a political tee shirt that makes it a problem.

Political speech does stop at the schoolhouse door.

Most rational people could argue that the medical and economic benefits far outweigh the perceived negatives of marijuana. Limiting this truth is a great disservice to our society.

wearing a tee shirt like the one in your post is advocating using an illegal drug. Schools should not allow students to express their desires to break laws.

Whether the laws are fair or logical is a separate issue.

"wearing a tee shirt like the one in your post is advocating using an illegal drug. Schools should not allow students to express their desires to break laws."


Hardly. Does it show any processing of the raw plant? Does it show any USE of the raw plant? Does it show any "desire to use" on the part of the person wearing it? Of course it doesn't.

n/t

Should they be allowed to wear shirts that have pictures of needles on them? As long as there is no heroin in the neeedle, it's okay, according to your logic.

I taught for years and I know.

"It shows the plant and smoking it is illegal"

It shows the plant, but it doesn't show someone illegally using it. Lay off the drug warrior kool-aid already.



You said "wearing a tee shirt like the one in your post is advocating using an illegal drug. Schools should not allow students to express their desires to break laws."

Now your moving the goalposts to:

"Should they be allowed to wear shirts that have pictures of needles on them? As long as there is no heroin in the neeedle, it's okay, according to your logic."

We are not discussing sensibility here. We are discussing your predisposition (in this case) to attribute a motive where none exists. The example at hand is your illogical statements about a tee shirt. Following it up with another illogical statement about needles pictured on a tee shirt does not make make your point, nor does it win your argument for you.

They're just pictures. Any and all intent and/or motive attatched to them by anyone other than the wearer of the shirt, in this case, has been done by you. Thats a fact, and theres no escaping it, or spinning it.

As far as your "needle" example, I see nothing inherantly wrong with a picture of a needle. Remember, were not discussing whats sensible, were discussing whats right or wrong. Even if the "needle" is full, whos to say it isn't insulin? Amazingly, I know the answer to that question. Anyone that wants to attribute a meaning, or motive to the picture, thats not crystal clear by just looking at it. And in this case, that would be you.

In terms of a political statement, a picture of a pot leaf is, and has been a symbol for political change in the arena of marijuana law. Seen anyone trying to legalize heroine lately? Apples and oranges. You wouldn't be against the legalization of MJ... would you?

If you really believe after saying "Schools should not allow students to express their desires to break laws", that wearing a tee-shirt of a marijuana leaf, or needles, or hell, a handgun, IMPLIES desire to break a law, then you sir are lost.

Someone else brought up the hypodermic needle image, which would be wrong, too, because every kid would know it was meant to suggest injecting heroin, not penicillin. That poster was arguing against my post explaining why marijuana leaf tee shirts are not allowed in school.

I'm not going to argue about this anymore. I taught for many years. If you'd had my experiences, you'd know that tee shirts with words or images on them are always a problem because there are always kids who push the envelope.

If kids and their parents were more concerned about their education than their "right" to wear shirts that advertise drugs, bands with obscene names, etc., kids would be learning a lot more in school.

It would also help if so many of them were not stoned in class, and if so many parents weren't in denial about their little darlings' actions at school. "My child would never" is a phrase no parent should ever use, because odds are very high that your kids will make a liar out of you.

I'll add that not many employers allow employees to wear whatever they like to work. Why should schools allow kids to think they can be slobs in tee shirts and jeans for their entire life?

And my apologies for attributing to you something that you did not say. I try to be very careful not to do that, and I blew it in this case. Again, apologies.


All I will add, is that the first amendment was created and exists to protect precisely that which as you say "pushes the envelope". Unpopular speech.

And, stoned on not, if MORE parents were concerned with making sure that kids learned the true nature of the constitution and its meaning and intent, perhaps we wouldn't have a drug war. Perhaps we wouldn't have an out of control government.


Examples can be made of needles, drugs, drug paraphenalia, murderous depictions, profanity, and so on. The key thing to remember here, is that were talking about an Edwards tee, and not any of those other things.

"Why should schools allow kids to think they can be slobs in tee shirts and jeans for their entire life?"

Something wrong with tee-shirts and jeans? I'll tell you what, I would be willing to wager that most folks would trust someone in tee-shirt and jeans more often than someone in a suit and tie. In my life and my travels, such has been my experience.

No one mentioned needles at all. Of course they should not be allowed to wear tee shirts with images of drug paraphernalia on them.

Easiest answer is to ban all tee shirts with lettering or images. Otherwise, teachers and principals face constant ridiculous questions like yours and some others here.

put pot leaves on tee shirts, jewelry, etc., and kids just HAPPEN to buy and wear them because they're interested in botany.

It's all about :smoke: and you know it.

Glad I'm too old for high school these days. Glad my kids are too old for it. Too bad for the grandkids, though.

And so many DUers willing to blythely through the kids' rights away...

will listen to my explanation.

Simply believes what they are told to believe by our "liberal" media like Fox News. We teach our kids that they can't have minds, thoughts, and opinions of their own, and by the time they are adults they have become conditioned to believe it.

No one every died from seeing a t-shirt they didn't agree with.

to school, either. If people can't hold opinions without posting them on their body for reference, they need to work on their critical thinking skills.

Despite the recent travesty in Morse v. Frederick (the bong hits for Jesus case) Tinker (the 1969 black armband case) is still god law.

That said, my Brit and Ozzie friends have convinced me that school uniforms are a good idea (though I have to say that their motives are different than what one might find in many American school districts).

How is the rest of the school? In school suspension for wearing a Edwards tee. He was here in Wisconsin, and I went to hear him speak. I was glad I went. He was talking about his health care entitlements for all citizens. He talked about if congress could receive those benefits so could the citizens that they serve-something like that.

When, in a story over in Late Breaking News not too long ago, a girl wanted to wear a "purity" ring to school almost no one here was concerned with free speech, but instead pointed out, rightly so, that it violated the dress code.

I'm failing to see how this is substantially different.

Either the dress code of schools trump free speech or free speech trumps the dress code.

It shouldn't be treated as dress codes trump speech I don't agree with and free speech trumps dress codes when its speech I agree with.

I personally think keeping hypocrisies down to the bare minimum necessary for every day life is a good thing.

iirc...

The thread in question didn't frame a counter about the debate about dress code and free speech?

My point was about the responses here to the issue of free speech versus dress codes.

...because it's, you know, in the UK where the US Constitution means less to the law than it does to the current occupant of the WH...

are in the majority Americans. So, like, you know, if they thought it was OK for the girl to be told NOT to wear a purity ring (because it was against dress code) and think it's outrageous for a kid to be sent home for a t-shirt which was against dress code, that would, you know, make them hypocrites.

T-shirt in US = 1st Amendment

What it would mean is that they can differentiate between, you know, laws that apply, and laws that, you know, DON'T...

in other countries because those countries don't have laws against them.

...

Do you really think that the people who felt like the purity ring thing was OK because a purity ring is against dress code thought that because they said, "Oh, hey, that's the UK. They don't have a constitutional right to free speech."?


BTW...you guys should work on that.

..and THEN claim it is about free speech...

and how its been enforced.

Kind of hard to judge this without more information, imo.

No, many schools in the UK ban jewellery and that was the issue with the ring.

British kids express themselves fine without have to express themselves through wearing a t shirt.

in Bushland.

This was their way to ban ALL advertising, druggie stuff, and political statements, or any "message" ..

It's the only way a school can avoid "issues"..

I don't see a problem with it..

No free speech, but you can be a corporate billboard if you want.

And for those who think a "tasteful" swoosh up by the collar is somehow better than a big honking one in the middle of a shirt, remember the old exchange:

Q: How do you get someone to really pay attention?
A: whisper

And wound up being called "commie" for the rest of the year by my Texas History teacher and a couple of his little minions from the dark side who used to ride their bikes past my house shouting the word on weekends.

:kick:

I think that quote applies here. Damn I fucking hate this administration with every fiber of my being. :argh:

If the OP or whoever wrote it could tell us, then we would know for sure if the shirt violated the dress code.

for me to develop an informed opinion ... although that didn't stop a whole lot of other people.

and a lot of misinformation. Much like the "Bong Hits" kid. Everyone was sure that the kid was not in school, school had been let out, and they weren't under supervision of teachers.

You'd have a case if they allowed a Hillary shirt but not an Edwards shirt.

They only survive because people are unwilling to
raise a fuss.

Tesha

Most school dress codes are indeed upheld when challenged in court.

My claim is backed by statements by the Executive Director
of my local ACLU affiliate and their Legal Director as well
as successes that the ACLU has had fighting exactly the sorts
of cases discussed in the Original Post; it commonly never
even gets to court. Instead, the threat to litigate causes
the school district to back down.

Tesha

Maybe your local ACLU has challenged dress codes and won. Ours has not and districts in this area have not only had dress codes upheld in court, but they have also implemented uniform policies. That has become very common.

than a dress code.

> Meaning?

It's actually easier to enforce a code that mandates
wearing a uniform than it is to enforce a "dress
code" that tries to rule certain things in and
certain things out.

It's also easier to defend (legally) such a uniform
code because it completely avoids cases where the
school permitted little Sara to wear her "Jeebus
loves me!" tee-shirt but tries to forbid the (say)
pro-Edwards tee.

Tesha

thanks

On edit: Sorry, no one posted the dress code yet. I was looking at someone else's dress code.

such wonderful times.

What?

It seems that since gang symbols have been removed from the school, the gangs have chosen certain college attire to symbolize their gang affiliations. No college or professional sports clothes are allowed at all, including any posters, book bags, or notebooks with team logos on them. I don't know what gang Edwards would represent, though!