# Girl suspended for wearing "Barbie is a Lesbian" t-shirt to school **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 20, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245 "2003-06-20T18:54:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/121 "2003-06-24T16:20:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*So what you’re saying is that we should all respect the concept of free speech. Unless we disagree with said speech. > > Marc \*\* If said speech is about the repression and/or hatred of another person or group of people based on racial, religious or sexual orientation, then said speech should not qualify for protection. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/122 "2003-06-24T16:30:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*This may surprise you, but denying a child the opportunity to express hatred is not a constitutional issue. Imagine that! \*\* Then I guess denying a child the opportunity to express that a toy has a sexual preference isn’t a constitutional issue either. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/123 "2003-06-24T16:32:34Z")
> [@](#): > > If said speech is about the repression and/or hatred of another person or group of people based on racial, religious or sexual orientation, then said speech should not qualify for protection. > [@](#): > > Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. > [@](#): > > The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eig ht, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. > [@](#): > > No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. You are advocating,among other things, that the Constitution of the United States of America be stripped of the protection of the Constitution of the United States of America. You are an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/124 "2003-06-24T16:36:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\*If said speech is about the repression and/or hatred of another person or group of people based on racial, religious or sexual orientation, then said speech should not qualify for protection. \*\* It is unpopular speech that needs the most protection. Marc ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/125 "2003-06-24T16:37:54Z")
can you not tell the difference between unpopular speech and hate speech? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/126 "2003-06-24T17:20:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\*can you not tell the difference between unpopular speech and hate speech? \*\* Is a t-shirt that says “Straight Pride” unpopular speech or hate speech? ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/127 "2003-06-24T17:34:29Z")
It would depend on the users reasons for wearing it. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/128 "2003-06-24T18:05:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*Then I guess denying a child the opportunity to express that a toy has a sexual preference isn’t a constitutional issue either. > \*\* Correct. 😕 What is the point? I consider the forbidding of hate slogans, expressions of sexuality, and intolerance all to be acceptable within the confines of a school - though to be fair, I find expressions of sexuality much less dangerous than the other two examples. Why must this somehow be a first amendment issue? You realize there are metric tons of law interpreting and clarifying our constitutional rights. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/129 "2003-06-24T18:56:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\*can you not tell the difference between unpopular speech and hate speech? \*\* It doesn’t matter. Whether the speech is hateful or not it should be equally protected. What good is free speech if we only protect what we like? Marc ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/130 "2003-06-24T19:00:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\*can you not tell the difference between unpopular speech and hate speech? \*\* Perhaps you could describe a method whereby we could objectively determine one from the other. I know what _I_ think is hateful. It only sometimes intersects with what others think is hateful. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/131 "2003-06-24T19:44:03Z")
Hold the phone. When did we agree that certain kinds of speech were prohibited? Hate speech is bad, wrong, nasty, and icky, but it’s still speech, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. More to the point, it doesn’t cause disruptions unless other people choose to react to it. Does it cross no one’s mind but mine that the best way to discourage both the neo-nazi and the T-shirt wearer is to simply ignore them? That the mere act of responding is letting them know that their message is worth your time? ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/132 "2003-06-24T19:51:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PhiloVance \* > \*\*Yeahh…ummm…sure. :rolleyes: > > You have a cite for that??? \*\* Um… Sure… Schmuck… :rolleyes: from [http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/l12/l12profile.pdf](http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/l12/l12profile.pdf) > [@](#): > > They are becoming sexually active as early as age 12. [http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/archive/pcc98/pr.htm](http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/archive/pcc98/pr.htm) > [@](#): > > Teen pregnancy rates are increasing. Some youth are becoming sexually active at a younger age. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/883501.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/883501.stm) > [@](#): > > He said that although more young people are becoming sexually active at a younger age they are becoming more “responsible and thoughtful about their sexual behaviour”. > **[Talking about a revolution](https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/talking-about-a-revolution-20030410-gdvioc.html)** > [@](#): > > Australians are having sex at an earlier age than they were 40 years ago. The study found that the median age at which today’s teenage girls and boys first have sexual intercourse is 16 - down from 18 for men and 19 for women now aged 50 to 59. Some scepticism is not out of place here. People do not always answer survey questions honestly, and 40 years ago it was perhaps more likely that sexually active teenagers would lie about their private life. [http://www.mainelygirls.org/reports/whoweare.html](http://www.mainelygirls.org/reports/whoweare.html) > [@](#): > > Girls are becoming sexually active by middle school, and they need support to understand their sexuality and make wise choices. 101 girls, 22% of the survey total had been sexually active. 85 (50%) girls of the 169 high school girls surveyed, and 16 (4%) of the 290 junior high girls had had sex. 47% of the 101 girls had their first sexual encounter before they finished 9th grade. In eight cases, the girl’s first partner was five to thirteen years older than the girl. 59% of the 101 sexually active girls in the survey wished they had waited to become sexually active, with many of them citing alcohol, or pressure from boys, their peers or themselves as reasons for choosing to become sexually active. Several girls indicated they were in committed and loving relationships and felt good about their choice to be sexually active. We also observed an interesting distinction. When girls talk of birth control, they mean oral contraceptives; practicing safe sex to girls means using of condoms. > **[DispatchLIVE](https://www.dispatchlive.co.za/u/sign-in/)** > > Award winning journalism. Online portal of the Daily Dispatch and Saturday Dispatch. The Eastern Cape's highest circulating daily newspaper. > [@](#): > > Four out of every 10 children are becoming sexually active at the age of 12 or younger, according to a new national youth survey. > > And, according to the Aids organisation Lovelife, most teen and pre-teen children having sex have either never used a condom, or use them inconsistently. > > According to official Department of Health statistics, HIV infection among 15- to 19-year-olds increased by more than 65percent during 1998. [http://www.skettel.com/pires/published/1999/99-aug-07.html](http://www.skettel.com/pires/published/1999/99-aug-07.html) > [@](#): > > In Trinidad, children are socialized into becoming sexually active as early as the age of nine. Young girls are misled into thinking that taking a man is the same as becoming a woman. [http://channel955.com/mojo\_teensex.html](http://channel955.com/mojo_teensex.html) > [@](#): > > By the time students are in the ninth grade, 34 percent have had sexual intercourse. That rises to 60 percent by 12th grade. > The report, by researchers at Child Trends, is based on a national teen survey that has been tracking about 8,000 teens since 1997. The ages of the teens ranged from 12-16 when the survey began, and researchers have interviewed the same group every year since then. This report looks specifically at the 664 teens who reported having sex for the first time between 1999 and 2000. Gee. And that only took me 10 minutes with Google. Drag your head out of the sand and don’t let it get lodged in your ass on the way up. Just looking around our society, if you have any contact with teens and pre-teens, it is very clear that they are more sexual and sexualized than in generations past. I was a teen of the 1980s, and next to the teens of today, I feel like my peers and I were in a Leave It To Beaver(so not an intentional pun) mode more than in Dawson’s Creek. There were some who were sexually active, but it wasn’t common. Working at a store that had a great deal of teen patronage, I was often privy to their conversations. The discussions I heard and overheard about sex was different for the most part from when I was a teenager. These kids knew what they were talking about and were very aware of technique, even if they did seem to ignore any ramification outside of pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shrew)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/133 "2003-06-24T20:07:45Z")
> [@](#): > > by Mr. 2001: There were plenty of shaved heads at my high school, and they never caused any sort of disruption. Why complain about shaved heads when apparently the real problem is swastikas? Swastikas are only a symbol. The real problem is the hatred. You can’t legislate hatred; all you can do is try to curb the expression of it. Now before anyone cries, “But they have a right to express their hatred!”, no, not in a high school setting, I don’t think they do. High schools have become far too much the microcosms of the world than the places of learning that they should be. If kids want to express their hatred, I respectfully suggest they join a hate group, not a local high school. And I never thought I would say that until this year; after having taught in England, where schools are for learning, I’ve seen the difference it makes. > [@](#): > > by Kabbes: In case you forgot, the only expression that should be happening in the classroom is the teacher’s. Thanks for backing me up, but I’ll have to disagree with this one. I expect students to express themselves…with their brains, classwork, and verbal abilities. And fair play, **Homebrew** , I don’t find the t-shirt offensive. My post should have read, "The girl wears a shirt that is offensive _to some_. Those _some_ would be people who find lesbianism to be offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/134 "2003-06-24T20:13:08Z")
> [@](#): > > can you not tell the difference between unpopular speech and hate speech? From the perspective of the Constitution of the United States of America, there is no difference. Both are equally protected. It’s a bit of an old saw that the solution to “bad speech” is more speech. The answer is not to repress speech or oppress speakers. The idea that you think one should fight “fascism” by suppressing speech would be laughable, if it weren’t so sickening. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/135 "2003-06-24T21:59:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by shrew \* > **Swastikas are only a symbol. The real problem is the hatred. You can’t legislate hatred; all you can do is try to curb the expression of it.** So we agree that hair (or lack thereof) is not a disruption? > [@](#): > > **If kids want to express their hatred, I respectfully suggest they join a hate group, not a local high school.** If the law gave them that choice, I’m sure some of them would choose to do just that. But as long as kids are _required_ to be in school, the government must give them the same rights as everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/136 "2003-06-24T22:08:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by shrew \* > \*\* > And fair play, **Homebrew** , I don’t find the t-shirt offensive. My post should have read, "The girl wears a shirt that is offensive _to some_. Those _some_ would be people who find lesbianism to be offensive. \*\* No doubt there are some people who are simply offended because they don’t like homosexuality. However I’m not offended by homosexuality and I find the shirt to be in poor taste. That kind of shoots down that theory doesn’t it? I suppose if this shirt isn’t a big deal then what about others? Can another student wear a shirt that says “Martin Luther King, Jr. was an Adulterer?” Only people who are offended by the truth would be offended by this shirt. Nevermind that it would be in extremely poor taste. I think we could all argue that any given shirt would only cause a ruckus if somone decided to make one. If it makes one, regardless of why, I don’t see why the school can’t tell students not to wear it. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/137 "2003-06-24T22:57:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > **I suppose if this shirt isn’t a big deal then what about others? Can another student wear a shirt that says "Martin Luther King, Jr. was an Adulterer?"** Absolutely. > [@](#): > > **I think we could all argue that any given shirt would only cause a ruckus if somone decided to make one. If it makes one, regardless of why, I don’t see why the school can’t tell students not to wear it.** I don’t see why the school can’t punish the students _who actually cause the ruckus_ instead of the one wearing the shirt. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/138 "2003-06-25T01:01:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*I don’t see why the school can’t punish the students _who actually cause the ruckus_ instead of the one wearing the shirt. \*\* Because she’s wearing the shirt with the intention of causing a ruckus. Which do you think is more likely…that she’s wearing the shirt to express her thought out views of Barbie’s sexuality, or that she’s wearing the shirt with the intention of provoking people and getting them to notice her? This isn’t a free speech issue any more than sending home a kid who comes into the school naked is a free speech issue. In both cases, the way the child is dressed is such that students will pay attention to him or her to the detriment of the learning process. It’s true that students do have the constitutional right to express what they believe, either by actual or symbolic speech, but they don’t have the right to disrupt the learning process. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/139 "2003-06-25T01:15:07Z")
The point of dress codes that restrict such things as hate speech, gang colors, expressions of sexuality, etc. is to prevent disruptions from happening in the first place. The best way to prevent disruptions is to intervene at the earliest moment, when the potential for disruption is detected. Preventing problems is almost always preferable to meting out punishment afterwards. We’re missing a lot of informtion about what exactly happened that we’d need to make a fair judgement here: Does the school have a dress code? If so, what exactly does it say, what types of clothing are banned, and what is the proscribed consequence for violation of these rules? How consistently does the school enforce such rules? Have other students been instructed not to wear t-shirts with expressions of sexuality on them? The article says the girl was held in the office for three hours then suspended for the rest of the day. What happened while she was held in the office? Was she given the option to change/turn the shirt inside out/cover it up/go home and change? If she was given this option, how did she respond? Did she further aggravate the situation while in the office through some further behavior? Was this part of a pattern of insubbordinate behavior on the part of the girl, or was it a first offense? Has the girl been sexually forward with other girls? Are there any other students who are openly homosexual? How does the school deal with these? What is the school culture as it relates to openly gay students? How likely was the shirt to have provoked a disruptive response in other students? Depending on the answers to these questions, I might come down on the girl’s side, the school’s side, or somewhere in the middle. As it stands, I don’t have enough information to make anything resembling an informed judgement. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245/140 "2003-06-25T01:44:21Z")
Sorry, but it doesn’t strike me asparticularly relevant to the case at hand what the student may or may not have done before, whether there are other openly gay students in the school or what have you. The question is, does the Constitution protect this student’s right to wear this shirt? Based on the Tinker decision my opinion is yes, it does. Which means the school was 100% wrong to suspend her and violated the student’s civil rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girl-suspended-for-wearing-barbie-is-a-lesbian-t-shirt-to-school/183245.md?page=8)