"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York teen-ager alleged on Thursday that teachers violated her civil rights when they suspended her from school for wearing a “Barbie is a Lesbian” T-shirt.
“Lawyers who filed a lawsuit on her behalf in Manhattan federal court said 14-year-old Natalie Young is openly lesbian and that a teacher laughed at her, calling the garment and its reference to the popular Barbie doll “inappropriate.””
Spiffy. As difficult as it is ANYWAY to be openly gay in grade school (or early in high school, since this article didn’t specifically mention what it was), you get this shit piled on top.
Fucking bullshit. They even made her remove rainbow-colored beads from her hair. Who, again, are those going to hurt?
. . . On the other hand, why would she wear a “Barbie is a Lesbian” T-shirt if not to provoke people?
[P.S. I am completely against suspending her, of course. I just think she was trying to be provocative in the first place and was hoist with her own petard]
I don’t understand why schools insist on making this mistake over and over and over again. Is the Tinker decision on students’ First AMendment rights not required reading at whatever clown college these administrators get their degree from? It’s like the constant battle of Gay-Straight Alliances in public schools. School after school refuse to acknowledge the right of these clubs to exist and ban them, or go berserk and ban all non-curricular clubs to avoid having to recognize the GSA. And time after time the ACLU steps in, files suit and forces the school to capitulate. Meanwhile, thousands of scarce taxpayer dollars which could have gone toward, say, education are wasted on legal fees and court costs.
The usual excuse these asshat admins give is that such a club or such a shirt would be “disruptive” to the school. When the plain truth is the biggest disruption is caused not by the shirt or the club but by the admin’s gonzo overreaction to it. Most of the students in this school probably wouldn’t have even seen or heard about this shirt and most who did probably wouldn’t have cared.
What is inappropriate about it? It’s not inflammitory or insulting to anyone. The girl is already openly lesbian, so it shouldn’t be too shocking to her classmates. And if her classmates do find it too distracting to behave properly, that is the fault of her classmates, and they should be suspended.
But the American education system has never been one for punishing the bullies. It’s much easier to punish their victims.
Tsk. You know better than that. “Inappropriate” is not the legal standard for student expression.
Question for anyone who thinks the shirt is “inappropriate”: Let’s say a student wore a shirt picturing Barbie and Ken dressed up as a bride and groom or a shirt that says “Barbie loves Ken.” Would that also be “inappropriate”? If not, then how is deeming this shirt inappropriate anything other than purest bigotry?
… but if the school openly supports, by failing to suspend her, the opinion that dolls can be gay, then the school is openly supporting the idea that people can be gay! :eek:
And we can’t have that, can we? :rolleyes:
Double-plus :rolleyes: : this took place in Queens…
Exactly; it’s ok for a t-shirt to state something that affirms heterosexuality, where as it’s inapropriate to have a t-shirt that affirms homosexuality? Fucking hypocrites. :mad: Why can’t they acccept the fact that people have lifestyles and beliefs that are different from them, and sometimes they have to accept it? 150 000 years later and people are still having trouble grasping this?
Can someone explain, precisely, what is offensive, or inappropriate, about the t-shirt’s message?
An arguement about “it is a sexual message” would seem to be adequately addressed with a simple reminder that there is more to being a lesbian than having lesbian sex 24/7. The girl herself is proof of this.
I also can’t imagine that Barbie is somehow an important enough cultural icon that telling a falsehood about her(in this case misrepresenting her sexual orientation) is legitimate grounds for censure/punishment.
Is it an extreme reaction against any mention of sexuality, regardless of orientation, in the schools? This smacks of “head in the sand” refusal to face the facts that high-schoolers are exposed to sexuality every waking moment of their lives(and indeed, quite frequently in their sleep).
Is it the falsehood of the statement(Barbie is actually probably hetero, there’s the whole “Ken” thing to consider) which is objectionable? Would a shirt that says “Elton John is gay” also be inappropriate?
Are all of these possible motives wide of the mark? Is it some combination thereof? What is the issue here? I’m confused. Anyone who believes the t-shirt’s message was inappropriate, could you please state exactly why?
Not allowing an offensive t-shirt is not the same thing as banning a gay club. They shouldn’t allow clothing that is designed to inflame anyone. This would include the shirt in question, or a “God hates fags” t-shirt, or anything else that is disruptive.
First let me say that I think this whole thing is silly, and agree that the girl in question should not have been suspended.
I’m going to muddy the waters a little though. What if it was a straight guy who wore this t-shirt to school, who obviously meant it to be a joke? Would this have gone without mention or would everyone have flipped into “zero-tolerance” mode and the result have been the same? Does he continue to have the right to wear this shirt as well, even though he is mocking homosexuality?
Just a thought, and I don’t really know the answer…
It’s not bigotry IMO to think it’s inappropriate. If I saw this girl wearing the shirt at the mall, I’d think it was funny. Ditto for the various array of shirts with depictions alcohol and tobacco products and those with sexual double entendres.
At school however, the learning environment sometimes has to outweigh an individuals personal rights. I think it sucks that the shirt will cause a disruption, but because it likely will I don’t have a problem with the school disallowing it.
Debaser, you’ll have to make a pretty compelling case that the shirt is designed to offend. I’d say it was designed to amuse. Are we going to ban any and all t-shirts that offend the smallest of groups?
I’m not sure I see this as clear cut discrimination. T-shirts that deal with sexuality are probably not appropriate regardless of orientation. If the story were about a T-shirt that read “Barbi Likes It From Behind” I wouldn’t find it all that remarkable.
But in that scenario, Waverly, it would be a comment on Barbie’s sexual activities, not sexual orientation - a concept that is nearly impossible to get conservative types (or at least those who get their panties in a bunch about this sort of deal) to distinguish between.
If it was creating a disputive learning enviroment then I think the teacer and/or principal could politely ask the girl not to wear the t-shirt again, but I do not think there is any need to suspend her.
I’ll agree that there might be a better example than the one I gave, but by proclaiming a sexual orientation are we not also indicating a sexual preference?
I’m not quite sure the punishment fits the mild nature of the crime, but I’m unconvinced that the school would not have seen similar heterosexual sentiments just as inappropriate.
Actually no. I’m gay. Does that tell you what position I prefer or even if I’m sexually active? If you say you’re straight, does that tell anyone about your penchant for rimming (or not as the case may be)? What about people who are celibate (by choice or not)? No, proclaiming sexual orientation is not the same as advertising your sex life.
