You call this a pit thread? I see several discussions, good humoured acceptance of valid points by the opposition, and a distinct lack of obscenties. I must protest.
That said, Cicada2003, could you provide more information on why a red t-shirt tripped the alarms? The possibilities I’m seeing range from gang violence to Star Trek related safety concerns, and I could use a further reference.
I agree with the folks who’ve spotted the beads as a much more fertile ground for a lawsuit. It just adds that extra layer of symbolism while removing the possibility of “generalized” offence.
Oh, and pizzabrat, I wouldn’t worry about all the Ken dolls. Something tells me they’ll be just fine hanging out together.
No objections from me. I might think the wearer is an asshat (particularly the one wearing the Confederate flag), but if he/she is minding his own business, I see no reason to make a fuss about it.
Now, a shirt with a clearly-offensive message (“Bring back slavery!”), that’s where I’d draw the line. Even then, go-home-and-change seems more reasonable than a suspension, IMO.
Personal history: I went to a high school with a bunch of annoying, proselytizing fundie Protestant Christians. (If any of you are familiar with Springfield, Missouri, and/or the Assemblies of God denomination, you’ll know what I mean.) As a result, I hated religion with a passion that lingered until the example of the more sensible religious folks here on the board, and some at college, cooled me down.
But did I get a provocative T-Shirt (say, the Bad Religion band logo, a cross with the circle around it and line through it like a no-smoking sign) and wear it to school to try to start shit? No. Did I go around trying to shock the religious nuts to pleasure my smug superiority? No. This girl wore that shirt to try to provoke her fellow students. Frankly, considering how few people know anything for sure about their sexuality at age 14, I wouldn’t be surprised if the claim to be a lesbian was just an attention-grabbing device for her. But assuming she’s genuine about it, provoking a response like this is still extremely immature.
Now, you don’t expel or suspend someone for that, IMHO. Teens are 99% immature jerks, at least as far as their public behaviour goes. This isn’t really any more immature than alot of things that go on at a high school. But if the teachers had told her not to wear it, I’d find that position defensible, as the sole purpose for wearing the shirt was to piss people off, which has no place in an educational environment. Even if some people actually deserve to be insulted and provoked, a school setting is not the right place for that.
Times have changed, and kids are more conscious of their sexuality now than in times past.
It isn’t necessarily an attention getting device in the way I percieve you to mean it.
Visibility, or the lack thereof, has been an ongoing issue. If gay people were an easily identified group that could be publicly distingushed on sight, there would be some difference in how we are treated and seen.
Perhaps it was attention getting, but I think it was in a far more positive vein than you are giving this girl credit for.
Isn’t urge to provoke genetically wired into all teenagers? She just happens to be a lesbian rather than a vegan activist or a born again fundie or just a “normal” hormonally charged teen.
Remember the Pit thread about the kid who wore a “Straight Pride” t-shirt to school? Am I to believe that everyone who supports the Barbie is a Lesbian shirt would allow the Straight Pride shirt to school?
I think a “Straight Pride” T-shirt is inappropriate for school wear, as is an “I (Heart) Jesus)”, “I (Heart) Satan”, or, for that matter, “I (heart) Doberman Pinschers.” I don’t think kids ought to wear message T-shirts to school, the possible exception being school-sponsored shirts that praise the school or its various teams or achievements.
Nice and convienent that t-shirts fall into the “clearly offensive” or “not clearly offensvie” category…because we know that teenagers would never think of trying to push that line. :rolleyes:
I believe it was banned because it was supposedly a gang color. Anyway, he did know not to wear red. But this shirt, as I said, was sort of a dead salmon. Really more of a pink shirt. I believe the assistant principal, the one who sent him home, might be colorblind.
Like I said before, I’m gonna have to know more about the dress code at that school to really fall on one side or the other. However, I do have a question for those of you voting “Send her home to change, but don’t suspend her.”
This kid has, by her own admission, been warned about wearing things that were considered inappropriate. She then violated the exact same rules/guidelins after being warned. What did they do with people at your school who repeatedly broke the same rule? In this case they suspended her for *one day, specifically the day she came in wearing the shirt.
The lawsuit mentions that she sat in the office for 3 hours, not allowed to return to classes while wearing the shirt. Well, if you’re wearing something that’s getting you sent home to change, no administrator in the world is going to let you back into class still wearing whatever it is. It would, after all, defeat the entire purpose of sending you home to change. So, unless you have a change of clothes in your locker or can drive yourself home, there your happy little hiney sits till a parent or parent-approved adult can come pick you up.
Well, if it takes three hours for someone to come pick you up to go change, odds are pretty good you just won’t come back to school. I mean, the day’s already half over by the time you get home. So I’m not sure I see the difference, in this particular case, between sending her home to change and suspending her for the day.
Thereby violating her civil rights. “Inappropriate” is not the legal standard in determining whether a student’s mode of dress is permitted. Likely to cause disruption (paraphrase) is. Let’s look at what, according to the student, has happened:
She was told she could not wear rainbow-colored beads as a symbol of gay pride.
She was told it was wrong for her to ask girls on dates.
She was laughed at by a teacher for wearing this shirt.
She was suspended from school for wearing this shirt.
Does anyone honestly believe that a non-lesbian girl wearing pretty rainbow hair beads without intending to make a statement beyond fashion would be told the beads were forbidden? Does anyone honestly believe that a male student would be told not to ask girls on dates? Assuming the allegations are true, this school has repeatedly violated this student’s rights. Of this kind of abuse are million-dollar verdicts made.
Well, I was using “inappropriate” as a shorthand for “against the rules” since that was the term they always used when broaching the subject at our schools. You know, “It’s inappropriate to come to school with your cheeks hanging out of your shorts, and you’ll have to go change.” I apologize for any misunderstanding.
I think that this is a case, like so many, where context is everything. What else was going on in the rainbow beads incident? Was her entire head covered in beads, or was it just a small strand? How did anyone even know it was a gay pride thing rather than a fashion thing unless she was going around pointing it out?
How was she “asking out” other girls? Was she politely inviting them to a movie, or was she saying, “Hey, come over to my house this afternoon and I’ll lick your pussy”? (And yes, I’ve seen boys suspended for saying similar things to girls at school, so it’s not a gay thing.)
Was the teacher laughing because the shirt was amusing, or was this person pointing and cackling and yelling, “Hey, everybody, look at the stupid lesbian and her stupid shirt?”
Was she suspended for wearing a shirt that espoused lesbianism, or was she suspended (as I suspect) for repeated violation of the dress code?
We just don’t know. All we have to go on is what one person claims happened. There could be a lot of important stuff that she’s editing out of the story to show herself in a more put-upon light. People do it all the freaking time. Until I get both sides of the story and can decide where in the middle the truth lies, I’m not accusing the administration of doing anything but their jobs.
What country are you living in, where a junior high school dress code trumps the Constitution of the United States of America? Students have a constitutionally protected right to free speech, subject to the limits of the Tinker decision. The burden here as I understand the law is on the school to show that the expression is disruptive to the functioning of the school. Not “potentially disruptive,” not “possibly controversial,” not “unpopular” and sure as hell not “inappropriate.” The fucking dress code can say whatever it wants, but when it runs afoul of the First Amendment then the dress code must fall.
It stands undenied and unchallenged that the girl was suspended for wearing this shirt. If you can’t decide that wearing a shirt that says “Barbie is a lesbian” is not sufficient grounds for punishing a student, then there’s something seriously wrong with you.
This thread reminds me at times of the first time we learned about the Constitution in school.
“But teacher, then why aren’t we allowed to curse in school?”
If the school was singling her out, then I’d feel more sympathetic for her (and I do think the bead thing is over the line). But come on, how long have schools been banning shirts with alcohol, drug, suicide, or whatever messages? Or tank tops or something?
As Otto has pointed out…Tinker (and other cases) give some rights of free expression in schools. Those rights are only limited by notions like “disruption” or “interference” with school activities.
Assuming (for purposes of this argument) that the Straight Pride t-shirt causes no more “disruption” or “interference” than the “Lesbian Barbie” doll…explain the difference to me?
So put away your cute sigh and explain the difference in the context of Tinker et al.