I think the problem here is the school was asking for something like to this to happen. Why did the school need to have a day of silence that would be an interruption to the whole school? The school should not have allowed its classrooms to become platforms for political actions. Once they allowed one side to take political action is the classroom (Day of Silence) why should they not allow other sides to take political action (wearing a shirt)? Is there any way to argue that the wearing of the tee whirt was a greater interuption to the school than the Day of Silence?
Tolerance is not a political action.
First off, your source is so clearly biased that I’m not sure where to begin. Assuming you believe the opinions put forth in the article than let me say:
There is no ‘homosexual agenda’, and if there is the Day of Silence is not part of it. The Day of Silence is meant to raise awareness of the fact that many people live in silence for fear of persecution and abuse, in this case because of sexual orientation. The students can still take notes, learn, and participate in many other ways during the day (as a teacher who had students who were participating in the Day of Silence, I can say that they were neither a distraction nor an ‘interruption’ as the article states).
Also, social issues and dealing with social issues is a very important part of education, so having students participate in the Day of Silence provides a learning oportunity for everyone in the school.
I’ll say it again. Expressing tolerance or empathy towards a group of people who live in silence is not a political action. Beliefs that condemn and villify members of the student body and the populace at large have no place in a school setting.
I wouldn’t be too uncomfortable with a discussion that compared the Tshirt’s message to hate speech, especially given the context. The kid with the shirt certainly can’t say “What? I’m just wearin a shirt.” With the nature of the event that he was knowingly acting against, I’d be willing to consider that there should be negative consequences for, basically, trying to pick a fight–which is nothing if not inciteful.
Actually, I tentatively agree: based only on the facts in the article, the school erred. It is free to add “sexual orientation” to its manual, and it’s free to add teh phrase “including BUT NOT LIMITED TO” to its manual, but absent either of these, it should’ve allowed the asshole in the T-Shirt to go about his day unmolested.
However, WND is hardly famous for giving all the relevant facts in a story, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out they’d left something out.
Daniel
I’ll take the cite as factual, even though it’s from a seriously biased source - citing the WorldNet Daily is asking for a religious flamewar. If the school did allow several students to not participate in the day’s events, then they open the door to all manner of political protest, including a counter-protest from a student who chose to wear his free speech on his clothing.
The article states that the school was listed as an “official participant” in the Day of Silence, however, the DoS website states that “… the presence of a school’s name on the list below should not be interpreted as 1) an endorsement of the Day of Silence, 2) sponsorship of the Day of Silence, 3) or agreement with the message of the Day of Silence. The appearance of the name of a school on this list does not mean that school supports any Day of Silence activities that may take place there.”
If the students were truly able to avoid speaking (imagine the myriad ways, for example, that students cope with religious dietary restrictions - many without ever saying a word unless the issue is forced) without disrupting classes, or had informed their instructors ahead of time so as to avoid a disturbance, then there’s really no issue of whether or not these students were “allowed” to have their protest.
I could, for example, protest our national fisheries policies by not uttering the word “trout” for a week. This would symbolize what the world would be like without trout. Poor, poor trout. I think you see my point.
On the other hand, the student with the religious message on his shirt was probably within his rights, but he clearly wore it with the intent to cause conflict. The administrator has a practical duty to avoid conflict between students, and his choice (“remove the shirt or face suspension”) was a practical one. Unfortunately, he didn’t have much to back it up with. Rightly defied by Mark, who had not actually broken any rule, he was forced to maintain his authority by suspending him on what amount to trumped-up charges.
Cases like these in schools generally boil down to students’ extremely literal interpretation of the rules where they conflict with an administrator’s duty to maintain good order and discipline in an environment conducive to learning.
If I were the admin, I’d allow both – except I would probably stipulate that the overtly religious message of the shirt was confrontational. If his shirt read, “Ask me why I’m not silent today” or similar, then fine.
Because they feel that, as a institution responsible of a future generations, it would be, y’know, a good idea to discourage violence against minorities. Just a thought.
I don’t know what you think the Day of Silence is, but let me inform you that it’s a protest against violence against sexual minorities. Would you be opposed to observance of a similar day against racially-motivated violence?
School are responsible for discouraging anti-social behaviour.
Are you saying a protest against anti-gay violence is political? That people who believe anti-gay violence is a good thing have a valid political point? Do you fel the same way about other forms of violence?
We don’t grant equal time to crackpot beliefs in schools. We typically don’t invite neo-nazis and holocaust-deniers into schools. Why would treat people who approve of gaybashing as somehow superiour?
You know, I don’t believe in school dress codes, and I don’t see the t-shirt as a proclamation of anything worse than the student’s narrow-mindedness.
But I do object to the double standard. Almost no one would rush to this kid’s defence if he were protesting an Day of Silence commemorating the victims of any other form of violence.
Hmm. Even given the apparently undebatable facts (what the day was designated and why; the kid wore a Tshirt and what it said), I’d say the school was right in not allowing him to do so. The difference between the phrases “inciting a riot” and “picking a fight” is a difference of scale and nothing more: the basic intent is the same. If you can limit speech intended to incite a riot, can you limit speech–in certain circumstances, like a school–that’s intended to pick a fight?
I would, assuming that the school hadn’t previously mentioned this in their manual.
I don’t see incontrovertible evidence that this kid was intending to pick a fight; he may have been intending to witness, or intending to persuade, or intending to start a debate. Given taht thiese are all things very similar to what the day of silence folks were trying to do, a content-neutral free-speech position should treat them equally.
The cure for the ills of free speech tends to be more free speech.
Again, I say this with the caveat that I believe WND about as far as I can throw it. And I’ve got a lousy arm.
Daniel
IMO, if he wasn’t trying to start something he’d have worn the shirt on a different day.
Have to agree with LHoD here. There’s an expression in Russian, “Hot’ gorshkom nazovi, tol’ko v pechku ne stav’,” which translates roughly as “Call me a pot, just don’t put [me] in the oven.” If the guy wants to peacefully state his contradictory opinion, however misguided, that’s his thing.
The peacefulness of his demeanor is really a separate issue. What if he peacefully wore a short that said “The KKK is a great American institution” to school on MLK day? It’s certainly protected speech, but would such a thing be countenanced in a public school?
Sorry, folks, but I have to come down on the kid’s side in this. I’m going to cite the Barbie Is A Lesbian thread, where the rights of students were laid out. Now, this one is a bit more confrontational than that, but I’d say it’s only on the edge of Fighting Words, and not over it.
Doesn’t mean he’s not an ass.
As sensitive as schools are these days to the mental health of students, it comes as no surprise, and is, IMO, completely right that a school would prevent someone from wearing a banner that attacks other students in such a way.
Either it is acceptable for students to express their opinions on homosexuality or it isn’t. If the school is allowing students on one side to express their opinions the other side should have an equal chance to express theirs. According to www.dayofsilence.org the purpose of the day of silence is:
“a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment – in effect, the silencing – experienced by LGBT students and their allies.”
In my opinion by saying that they are protesting anti-LGBT bias they are claiming that being LGBT is acceptable. Therefore if schools are allowing the day of silence they should allow the opposite view point to be expressed. Schools should not take sides on issues. They should only decide which issues do not belong in schools.
Saying the KKK is a great American institution would not be acceptable becuase the KKK has historically advocated and carried out violence against blacks. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is different becuase it is not advocating violence against homosexuals. If he wore a shirt that said something to the effect of “kill all the evil fags” there would be no question that its inappropiate.
He is not picking a fight. If anything the students performing the day of silence are the ones firing the first salvo.
To sum up the school needs to either say homosexuality is an unacceptable topic to debate or they need to allow all students to express their views as long as they are not violent or intimidating in nature.
Nope. the Day of Silence is a response to the siege the GBLT community have been under.
Right so they are as lissener said trying to pick a fight to get things changed.
I agree with treis’s post, and believe it was well spoken. A lot of people do believe homosexuality is a sin, and though I disagree, I don’t think silencing the kid with the t-shirt, is an answer to a protest of the silencing of others. It’s sad, but a t-shirt telling people they are going to hell, is probably as powerful an illustration of what GLBTs have to deal with on a daily basis, as the silence of others is.
Funny…I don’t see schools allowing pro-wifebeating t-shirts to be worn during a day in commemoration of battered women, or allowing pro-dictator t-shirts to be worn on a day commemorating those who lost their lives to political oppression.
So why is the whole anti-homosexual thing acceptable? I mean, other than because some misguided adherents to an ancient religion think it’s a sin. Seriously, if I belonged to a cult that taught that starvation and famine were approved by the God of Hunger, would I be morally correct to wear a t-shirt advocating the deaths of millions to a Save the Children rally?
Pro-Wifebeating would be advocating an illegal act coupled with violence which has no place in school. Being pro-dictator is advocating illegal murders (although this is a much bigger can of worms.) and has no place in school. Saying homosexuality is a sin is acceptable as long as you don’t advocate violence towards homosexuals.
It would depend on the message on your shirt. If it said “starve yourself and be saved by the god of hunger” then that would be fine becuase it merely expresses your opinion without advocating violence. If the shirt said “Capture people and starve them so they can be saved” or “Starve your children so they can be saved” are unacceptable becuase they advocate illegal and violent acts.
I agree with you that “the cure for the ills of free speech tends to be more free speech.” And I support this kid’s right to wear any t-shirt, however ill-conceived the message, to school. I’m too much of a civil libertarian to think otherwise.
But I have the same problem with this that I had during the whole Eminem controversy. People were lining up to defend the man’s right to freedom of speech who would never have, say, defended a neo-nazi or white supremacist band. Radios and clubs would play Eminem which would never have played racist rockers.
Same deal here. I have no doubt that, manual or not, a teenager showing up on Yom ha-Shoah with a “The Jews Killed Jesus” t-shirt would probably have been expelled, even if he didn’t advocate violence.