Story via Fark re an Australian HS student asked to change her shirt for a school photo. Not “great” enough issue for great debate so I’m putting the question here.
Do kids have the right to wear whatever they please for school assembly type photos or should schools be able to exercise some level of control over appearance, including banning T-shirts making social or political statements?
This is why I always voted FOR school uniforms.
That way things such as this are not even an issue.
AS to the question: AS long as nobody gets an eye put out let 'em wear it.
I would make it simple: no T-shirts (w/ writing/images/etc.) of any kind for such photos. Reason: they’re not dressy enough. Easy.
I think kids (who are forced to be in school by law) do have the right to wear clothing that has social or political statements. Free speech should not stop at the schoolhouse door. If the clothing is causing a measurable distraction, then it can be regulated.
And if a student wants to wear a cartoon of Mohammed on their T-shirt? :eek:
It’s almost as if, going by reading that report, that it was okay for school staff and pupils to see the T-shirt’s slogan, but they’re trying to make sure that “certain parents” didn’t see it and get upset by it.
Dunno. When and where I went to secondary school, we wore uniforms with “mufti” as an occasional treat. I don’t think any of us thought to wear stuff with brands on, let alone slogans. But mufti was never a time for formal school photos. Stephanie in the story said she understood the concerns of the school, and the school didn’t make a big issue of asking her to take the T-shirt off – but they probably could have laid down the guidelines well ahead of time.
Only if those statements are unpopular with people who’ll complain.
Do schools need some degree of control over this kind of thing? Probably. This doesn’t strike me as an instance where it’s necessary.
What a bullshit argument! The school in question has clearly decided that a uniform is not necessary. But they then need a vague ‘dressy’ uniform for a photograph? Bloody hell, my sixth-form photo has people in all sorts of outfits, and quite a few visible hangovers. As does my photo of my final year at uni, but that one also has a toy gorilla included.
I’m not familiar with the Australian school system. How many people would likely be in this photo? I ask because I attended a giant high school, and doubt anyone would have been able to make out words on clothing in our panoramic class photo.
Sometimes being dressy doesn’t cut it either:
Can’t speak for Strathmore Secondary, but we always had photos in classes (ie, about 25 kids at a time). In Year 12 there was a special “all Year 12” photo - about 160 of us. I think that was a typical size of school. I get the idea that US schools can get much bigger.
How can this NOT be discrimination?
Now if everybody has to wear a non-gender specific uniform? Well… OK. I wont like it, but at least it’s a reasonable compromise.
I guess the best we can hope for is that the people of this mind set aren’t reproducing. Or at least not children who think like they do.
That way all we have to do is sit and wait for them to die off.
My thinking now is that dressing for school should be like dressing for work. Well, like dressing for work at my company, or most any office you might go to. A button down shirt with a collar tucked into their slacks. Let them wear sneakers. No need for a tie either. Perhaps require them to be solid colors or stripes. Introduce them to casual friday. I suppose those lanyards with a photo ID at the end serve a purpose as well.
That’s basically what I wear to work every day. No piece of clothing I wear costs more then $9.
I was just looking at my 12th grade one, 1992 maybe almost 200 kids. If you wanted to make a statement it would be pretty easy to sit in a place where there’s no one in front of you so people could read it. We also had a “wild” photo where lots of other stuff was going on, signs, banners and whatnot. Nobody chose to make a statement though so who knows what would have happened. Now my 8th class was much large and rather then sitting on bleachers with the camera at our angle it was taken with us crowded together in a field with the camera on the second floor. A lot harder to see anything. I seem to recall some snickering of the kids since someone did something naughty but I can’t recall what it was or if it happened at all.
It doesn’t sound like she was trying to make a statement though. Just that she happened to wear that shirt on that day.
I went to an Australian High School where a uniform was compulsory. People who weren’t wearing the uniform on school photo day didn’t get their photo taken. In all years we had individual photos.
I toook a glance at the HS in question, and their uniform policy, which states:
I don’t think she’d be allowed to wear that in the work force, so it looks like they are standing up to their policy.
Oh, and for the google retarded, linky.
They’re being selective in their application of the policy.
And at the expense of triple posting, a 17yr old is not “forced to be in school by law”.
Why exactly does “free speech” = “t-shirt with writing on it”? And what is a measurable distraction? Isn’t that just when everyone else finds something offensive and kicks up a fuss? Isn’t that oppression also?
Not to be nitpicky, but it does say “and the workforce” not “or the workforce”.
Here we stopped getting class photos in year 8. We got individual photos taken in year 8 (for library cards) and 12 (for the yearbook) as well as one giant photo with everyone in it, but that’s it. We also have a uniform and anyone wearing that shirt would have been asked to put on a spare uniform and get in the photo.
The school seems quite unusual in not having a uniform, since uniforms are the accepted norm in all Australian schools, public and private.
But if there was no uniform, then I personally think it is bullshit. If she can wear it normally, she can wear it in the photo. Heaven forbid the yearbook is marred by a lesbian.