So tell me, where on this campus can students publicly discuss or express the proposition that homosexuality is sinful and shameful? Banning these shirts while allowing “silence=death” shirts is a double standard. Freedom of expression isn’t just for those opinions you happen to share.
Indeed–and as the boundaries have been described by other courts, they must:
- Not favor one political opinion above another;
- Be based realistically, not hypothetically, on attempts to avoid disruptions of academics;
- Allow for political opinions to be expressed in conformance with 1 and 2.
I have trouble seeing how this shirt is substantially more prohibitable than one that labels Bush an International Terrorist; the latter T-shirt is protected for students at public schools, according to the courts.
Yes, a school in which everyone was insulting everyone else would be unpleasant. However, there are ways to avoid that eventuality without resorting to administrative prohibitions: for example, students may shun those who are insulting.
I am all about the application of social pressure. I am not all about the application of administrative coercion.
Daniel
Does the school have an obligation to provide a forum for students to debate everything that is taught at the school? Can’t students say that they are opposed to homosexuality outside of school, just like the rest of us?
Not if they’re going to allow the pro-gay rights crowd to promote their ideas in the school, while forbidding religious conservatives from doing the same.
As long as the students are not disrupting class, actually, the answer is more or less “Yes, they do.” They don’t have to go out of their way to provide the resources for this forum (i.e., they don’t have to fund a student newspaper), but they can’t stop students from engaging in political speech, as long as that speech is not disruptive or illegal.
Daniel
It’s a quandary all right. Any provocative T shirt might result in a fight. Should we then not allow anything. Seems too drastic and avoiding the issues rather than dealing with them.
I agree that a better solution is to discuss ways of handling it in a non violent way. Years ago I had a friend who would never understand when I spoke of something being inconsiderate. When I behaved in like manner and she got to feel it then she understood.
I also agree that if the school is going to allow events etc. to support gay rights then folks who don’t agree should be able to express their views as well. All part of learning how to be an adult in this country and what free speech is all about.
I don’t think you can create an equivalence between these two messages, though. A gay pride shirt is a message about the person wearing the shirt: “I’m gay, and I’m proud about that.” “Homosexuality is shameful,” is a shirt that insults other students: “You’re gay, and you should be ashamed.” A student is free to disagree with the first shirt, even to the extent that they get infuriated, but that shirt is not saying anything about the angered student, it’s merely expressing a opinion he doesn’t like. It is, however, very difficult to see a shirt like the one described in this lawsuit without taking it personally, because it is passing a personal, moral judgement on every gay student who sees it.
That said, I’m still not sure that I agree with the court’s ruling. (I’m talking principal, here, not as a matter of law.) Philosophically, my instinct is to oppose any infringement on free speech unless there’s a clear and present danger to others. Practically, I worry that this decision will be used to muzzle queer students in less enlightened districts. And whimsically, I prefer my bigots to be clearly labeled for my own protection.
And that’s the rub! Not that free speech is limited in schools, but it is selectively limited - in many cases to the detriment of conservatives. Believe me, I hear Bush-bashing in classrooms all of the time but if a student speaks up to advocate for Bush, you’d think the student said, “Hitler was cool.” and started goosestepping around the classroom. They’re even this intolerant to other teachers. When discussing how bad NCLB is, I raised the point that there ARE too many unqualified teachers in the classroom and that I support that aspect of the law, one would have thought that I suggested serving stewed babies in the cafeteria.
This is not entirely accurate. Teachers can, and will, terminate a student-initiated debate concerning religion. The reason that I was given in HS was that such discussions in an unmediated forum have a high potentiality of disrupting other students. It made no difference that all people involved in the discussion were good friends and it did not matter that it was really more of an information session than an actual debate.
With regards to censoring the clothing of students, I think the burden falls entirely on the administration. They have to answer to the parents who get angry when they found out that someone was allowed to wear something that questions their values and beliefs. I do not see anything wrong with letting them determine what is and what is not disruptive to the learning environment.
If the teachers did this out of classroom time, they were probably violating teh constitution. If they did this during class time, then they could easily do so: any oral conversation during class time can be disruptive to the lesson. (The SC has declared that silent political speech is protected during classtime, with limits as described above).
Do you think that’s a view supported by Supreme Court decisions?
The administration has to answer to those parents, but they also have to answer to the parents of the students whose speech was stifled. What’s more, they have to answer to the law of the land. They’re not autocrats; they have to obey the law. And as I understand the law, this decision contradicts previous decisions.
Daniel
Let’s suppose we were talking about a religious sect which considered eating meat the moral equivalent of cannibalism (such sects exist).
Let us suppose further that the members of this sect quite sincerely believed they were trying to save your soul from damnation when they tried to persuade you not to eat meat and believed there was no point in mincing words to spare your feelings.
Some of their kids start wearing tee-shirts at school that say “meat is murder.” In response, other kids start wearing shirts that say “meat is healthy” and “meat is delicious.” There are some tense feelings but as yet no violence and no indication that violence is likely to break out.
Would it be at all appropriate for the school to ban the “meat is murder” shirts on the grounds that they pass a personal, moral judgment on every meat-eating student who sees that slogan, but allow other students to wear their “meat is cool” shirts on the grounds that they are merely trying to send a positive message about meat eating?
It may offend some students profoundly to be told they’re on the same moral level as cannibals, especially when the condemnation is basically a religious one which can’t be justified outside the framework of that religion’s belief system. But people have the right (and sometimes the duty) to make severe moral judgments–even when those judgments hurt somebody’s feelings. Certainly respect for the feelings of others doesn’t stop a lot of folks in the gay rights crowd from making very severe moral judgments about those who can’t quite go along with every point of their program.
Frosted Glass, keep in mind that (according to the Supreme Court, the school principal can not ban something based on what she or he thinks might be disruptive. It must be something that has caused a disruption. More than likely, the teacher or principal would need to have been a witness to the disruption that was caused. Or perhaps they would have been witness to the aftermath of the disruption. The principal can’t just say, “That’s going to cause a problem. Ban it.”
The new ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court does seem to contradict this, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
This is a decent analogy; I’m glad you came up with it, as I was trying and failing to come up with one.
On the one hand, I agree that neither shirt can be banned (although by virtue of comparing eating meat to an illegal act punishable by death, I can see more argument for banning “meat is murder” than for banning “homosexuality is shameful”–but no analogy is perfect). On the other hand, I agree with Miller that the “meat is fine” T-shirts are less objectionable than the “meat is murder” ones, even though both ought to enjoy full protection.
Daniel
Like I said, I’m not convinced that banning the “Homosexuality is shameful” shirt is appropriate. But if we’re allowing that, then I’d have to say that, under the circumstaces of your OP, it should be equally acceptable to ban “Meat is murder” t-shirts.
However, I’d like to offer a counter analogy, which I think more accurately reflects the situation in the OP: do you think schools should have the ability to prevent kids from wearing a KKK shirt to school? And if you do, do you think they should also prevent a kid from wearing a shirt that celebrates his African heritage?
Actually, there’s a problem with this analogy: the KKK has a history of murdering people. If the homophobe’s shirt contained the biblical call for killing homosexuals, the analogy would be better, and I’d be cool with banning that shirt, although to the best of my knowledge that’d be exploring new free-speech-in-the-schools territory.
Daniel
I see where you’re coming from, but I still think the analogy works. The KKK is not currently a murderous vigilante organization. Certainly, it has a history of violence, but one could say the same thing about Christianity as it relates to the persecution of homosexuals. Regardless, the point can be made just as validly with any t-shirt promoting a racist agenda or organization. The KKK was just the most convenient and well-known I could think of for the purposes of the analogy. How about a Prussian Blue t-shirt instead?
Ick. Some things I kinda wish I didn’t know about.
That said, if the T-Shirt just advertised Prussian Blue, maybe said, “White and Proud,” I’d see it as protected. If it started praising Rudolf Hess, you might run into problems, the same problems you’d run into if someone’s shirt praised an historic figure famous for killing gay people. I’m not real sure where I’d come down on that: does praise of past crimes against a group equate to advocating such crimes in the present?
I’m inclined to say that it does, but I’m not sure.
Daniel
You think knowing about them is bad? I’ve actually heard them sing! Content aside, it should be considered a hate crime against music lovers everywhere.
I disagree with this solution, because it will be abused unfairly; we ARE talking about kids and teenagers here afterall. There’s a big difference between something that is deliberately offensive, such as the latter two you mentioned above, and something that is merely an expresison of one’s beliefs, like the first. You will have some kids claiming offense just because they don’t like the kid wearing the t-shirt, or want to cause a scene; in fact, this very scenario happened to me in middle school (fortunately, the principal had the sense to just laugh at the kid). In essence, you’d be moving the power to make a scene or statement from the kids wearing the shirts to the ones “offended” by them and at the same time you’ve limited free speech, so you’re only complicating the matter.
FWIW, I believe any limitation of free speech is unwarranted. We have a constituionally guarenteed right to free speech, but not a guarenteed right to never be offended. Of course, you’re always going to have morons who abuse the system by attempting to deliberately offend others, but more often than not, the backlash from doing so among peers (being ostracized, told off, beat up, etc. not that I am promoting being someone up for offending you) is far more fitting than simply banning the shirt and only validating the student’s attempt to make a scene. Of course, I can accept a case-by-case banning of shirts that are found to be exceptionally disruptive, but not an overall ban
I always considered free speech for anyone in HS or below to be a bit suspect. Think back to your HS days (if your old enough to do so) and you will find alot of what you believed and thought was influenced by your parents, or at least adults you knew.
Does this kid truly believe Gay=Shameful? Or is it just something her parents are driving into her. Are we trying to protect her free speech? Or her parents? And is a school the place to do this?
I hate to sound like an old curmudgeon but I would love to see a dress code, and I mean uniforms, for all public schools. Schools should be more disciplined and restrictive than real life, they are kids for goodness sake! Wear a shirt like that in some cities in this country and that Shameful Gay girl just might kick your Hetro Proud ass. Sadly, if she is allowed to wear this during school, she will think it is okay to wear it anywhere. And while she has the right to do so, as an adult, she needs to be made aware of the possible consequences of hate speech.