# Student banned from wearing somewhat graphic pro-life T shirt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263 "2009-07-07T22:35:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![SmashTheState](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SmashTheState](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmashTheState)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/241 "2009-07-12T02:03:13Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > What rights they _should_ have is a different discussion. We’re talking about what they _do_ have. I think that children should have some rights equal to adults, but others which are graduated to accommodate their brain development. My view, as it turns out, is the predominant one. I’ve known 10 year olds I would trust with my life and alleged adults with professional careers who post on Internet web-based message boards whom I would not trust to water my plants. ---
**Author:** ![meara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@meara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meara)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/242 "2009-07-12T02:20:56Z")
School really is different than the outside world. There is an element of parenting involved. We would never restrict the freedom of one adult to tell another to go to hell, but we rightly restrict schoolchildren from saying that to each other. It is reasonable for teachers to prevent emotional distress and undue distraction at school. Despite the first amendment, it is right for a teacher to try to prevent an eighth grader from telling a kindergartener that his mother is going to get sick and die next week. I believe it is similarly appropriate to restrict the kinds of topics that can be worn and depicted on clothing worn in the halls with those kindergarteners. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/243 "2009-07-12T02:42:04Z")
> [@meara](#): > > School really is different than the outside world. There is an element of parenting involved. We would never restrict the freedom of one adult to tell another to go to hell, but we rightly restrict schoolchildren from saying that to each other. Actually as an adult I wouldn’t be allowed to wear that shirt to work either. > [@](#): > > It is reasonable for teachers to prevent emotional distress and undue distraction at school. Despite the first amendment, it is right for a teacher to try to prevent an eighth grader from telling a kindergartener that his mother is going to get sick and die next week. I believe it is similarly appropriate to restrict the kinds of topics that can be worn and depicted on clothing worn in the halls with those kindergarteners. That and controversial political topics shouldn’t distract from Math class. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/244 "2009-07-12T06:19:18Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Actually as an adult I wouldn’t be allowed to wear that shirt to work either. > > That and controversial political topics shouldn’t distract from Math class. And in this case, it didn’t distract from anything. But even if it caused a mild interruption, that’s of no moment. A plane flying overhead does as much and no one’s advocating ground planes during school hours. Or when someone comes late to class. No one’s suggesting to expel those students outright. This shirt didn’t materially interfere with the school; thus, the school’s proscription on it is constitutionally dubious. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/245 "2009-07-12T15:06:37Z")
> [@meara](#): > > School really is different than the outside world. There is an element of parenting involved. We would never restrict the freedom of one adult to tell another to go to hell, but we rightly restrict schoolchildren from saying that to each other. No, we _wrongly_ restrict schoolchildren from saying that to each other. College students attend voluntarily (although you could make the argument that it is sufficiently necessary to obtain a degree … another argument, another time). Students in elementary, middle / jr-high, and high school for the most part have no choice. You therefore can’t make the argument that, in deciding to attend school, they accept an abridgment of their rights. It would be reasonable to restrict schoolchildren from making slanderout statements or making threats, but “go to hell” ? And, again, there’s nothing wrong with that shirt. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/246 "2009-07-13T03:46:29Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > And in this case, it didn’t distract from anything. But even if it caused a mild interruption, that’s of no moment. A plane flying overhead does as much and no one’s advocating ground planes during school hours. Or when someone comes late to class. No one’s suggesting to expel those students outright. > > This shirt didn’t materially interfere with the school; thus, the school’s proscription on it is constitutionally dubious. School’s are allowed to set dress codes. If controversial political topics violate the dress code then too damn bad. The first amendment doesn’t mean you have the right to say anything anywhere at any time. If you think it does it’s on you to provide a cite for that extreme interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/247 "2009-07-13T04:28:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > School’s are allowed to set dress codes. If controversial political topics violate the dress code then too damn bad. The first amendment doesn’t mean you have the right to say anything anywhere at any time. If you think it does it’s on you to provide a cite for that extreme interpretation. I’m not so sure. I think even if a school adopted a comprehensive dress code, entirely innocent of a desire to suppress student speech, it still could not prevent students from wearing a _Tinker_-style armband. What the school would have to show is that the restriction (1) advances a significant state interest (and again, merely “avoiding controversial topics” does not meet this test) and (2) that alternative avenues are left open for speech. Maybe if you had something like a weekly pan-school assembly, where students could address their peers on topics of their choosing, might such an armband prohibition be allowed. But I suspect that is even more hippie-dippy then letting the kids just wear a tee-shirt announcing their views, and so is less preferable to most who would support the dress code. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/248 "2009-07-13T06:46:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > School’s are allowed to set dress codes. If controversial political topics violate the dress code then too damn bad. The first amendment doesn’t mean you have the right to say anything anywhere at any time. If you think it does it’s on you to provide a cite for that extreme interpretation. This is what I love about religious fanaticism: no matter how wrong they are, no matter how they’re shown how wrong they are; no matter how deceptive it’s requires to get to bigger “truth” of god, they don’t stop. They just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and they never shut the fuck up because after all, repetition makes it true, not reality. Ms, no matter how much you proclaim “well, they could do this” and “they could do that” and “they might” and “it could be the case” to the “can it not possibly be true that” the fact is this area of law has been settled for many years. You have yet to make one reasonable argument on which your claim might be almost okay. Besides which is the case that _none of what you’ve suggested_ bears any relationship to this case. It didn’t happen. Kimmy, that’s because a code can’t merely be a sham. And even if their intent is content neutral, yet nevertheless restricts all expression of personal ideas, it must yield to the state. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/249 "2009-07-14T01:48:49Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > This is what I love about religious fanaticism: no matter how wrong they are, no matter how they’re shown how wrong they are; no matter how deceptive it’s requires to get to bigger “truth” of god, they don’t stop. They just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and they never shut the fuck up because after all, repetition makes it true, not reality. > > Ms, no matter how much you proclaim “well, they could do this” and “they could do that” and “they might” and “it could be the case” to the “can it not possibly be true that” the fact is this area of law has been settled for many years. You have yet to make one reasonable argument on which your claim might be almost okay. Besides which is the case that _none of what you’ve suggested_ bears any relationship to this case. It didn’t happen. > > Kimmy, that’s because a code can’t merely be a sham. And even if their intent is content neutral, yet nevertheless restricts all expression of personal ideas, it must yield to the state. You do realize there are thousands of non-religious schools which require uniforms? ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/250 "2009-07-14T06:55:41Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You do realize there are thousands of non-religious schools which require uniforms? I’ll respond thus: in the military, people wear uniforms. Wow, I feel better getting _that_ off my chest. Or were you trying to contribute to this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/251 "2009-07-14T07:20:57Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I’m not so sure. I think even if a school adopted a comprehensive dress code, entirely innocent of a desire to suppress student speech, it still could not prevent students from wearing a _Tinker_-style armband. What the school would have to show is that the restriction (1) advances a significant state interest (and again, merely “avoiding controversial topics” does not meet this test) and (2) that alternative avenues are left open for speech. > > Maybe if you had something like a weekly pan-school assembly, where students could address their peers on topics of their choosing, might such an armband prohibition be allowed. But I suspect that is even more hippie-dippy then letting the kids just wear a tee-shirt announcing their views, and so is less preferable to most who would support the dress code. Good point, I should’ve thought of _Tinker_. 😉 Yes, if they wanted to setup some kind of pro-life armband or lapel pin it likely could not be rejected, but having a graphic image is different. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/252 "2009-07-14T07:23:20Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > This is what I love about religious fanaticism: no matter how wrong they are, no matter how they’re shown how wrong they are; no matter how deceptive it’s requires to get to bigger “truth” of god, they don’t stop. They just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and they never shut the fuck up because after all, repetition makes it true, not reality. > > Ms, no matter how much you proclaim “well, they could do this” and “they could do that” and “they might” and “it could be the case” to the “can it not possibly be true that” the fact is this area of law has been settled for many years. You have yet to make one reasonable argument on which your claim might be almost okay. Besides which is the case that _none of what you’ve suggested_ bears any relationship to this case. It didn’t happen. > > Kimmy, that’s because a code can’t merely be a sham. And even if their intent is content neutral, yet nevertheless restricts all expression of personal ideas, it must yield to the state. I’m not even sure what the hell you are trying to say. Your rant about religion got in the way as it usually does when someone rants about religious belief for no apparent reason. Schools can set dress codes. You find this a controversial statement? At my High School they made people change shirts with offensive graphics on them all the time. So really I have to say, “What the hell are you even talking about?” ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/253 "2009-07-14T07:32:22Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I’m not even sure what the hell you are trying to say. Your rant about religion got in the way as it usually does when someone rants about religious belief for no apparent reason. > > Schools can set dress codes. You find this a controversial statement? At my High School they made people change shirts with offensive graphics on them all the time. > > So really I have to say, “What the hell are you even talking about?” Is it difficult for you to stay on topic? If a girl walked around fucking herself in the ass with a used dildo while blowing one of her teachers, would they be able to stop that? If a dude was murdering some geek in the gym, would a teacher be able to stop that? You bring up so many fucking points nowhere implied here that it’s ridiculous. It’s almost hard to believe that nearly 100% of the time your religious whackjob brethren try to push some shit in schools, THEY LOSE. Because your level of reasoning is about on par with theirs and courts routinely, even our very conservative justices, smack it down. Hell, you know it’s fucked up when Scalia can’t lie to save it. I digress. How about this: you stay on topic, and I’ll stay on topic. Note, “what if she wore a short skirt and her vagina lips hung out?” isn’t on topic. It has been stipulated all around that the school has some plenary authority to enforce a dress code. The limits of that power depend on the severity of the dress code. If the dress code unilaterally stifles free speech, and some alternative isn’t given, then it’s constitutionally infirm. Do keep up. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/254 "2009-07-14T07:39:48Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Is it difficult for you to stay on topic? No, I am not the one who started frothing about how much they hate religious people. So really I should ask you if it’s so difficult for YOU to stay on topic? > [@](#): > > If a girl walked around fucking herself in the ass with a used dildo while blowing one of her teachers, would they be able to stop that? Yes. > [@](#): > > If a dude was murdering some geek in the gym, would a teacher be able to stop that? Yes. > [@](#): > > You bring up so many fucking points nowhere implied here that it’s ridiculous. It’s almost hard to believe that nearly 100% of the time your religious whackjob brethren try to push some shit in schools, THEY LOSE. Because your level of reasoning is about on par with theirs and courts routinely, even our very conservative justices, smack it down. Hell, you know it’s fucked up when Scalia can’t lie to save it. See this is the part that makes no sense at all. What Scalia or religion have to do with me saying that schools have the right to set dress codes is beyond me. > [@](#): > > I digress. How about this: you stay on topic, and I’ll stay on topic. Note, “what if she wore a short skirt and her vagina lips hung out?” isn’t on topic. Umm ok. > [@](#): > > It has been stipulated all around that the school has some plenary authority to enforce a dress code. The limits of that power depend on the severity of the dress code. If the dress code unilaterally stifles free speech, and some alternative isn’t given, then it’s constitutionally infirm. Do keep up. I get that, but that’s not the point. As **Kimmy\_Gibbler** who is not prone to insane rants filled with non-sequiturs about his chosen hate group pointed out in regards to Tinker vs Des Moines, they cannot ban something based solely on the political content, but that’s not what happened here. They banned it because of it’s graphical nature, and not because of its message. If the Pro-Life movement wanted to create a chartreuse armband then the school district would have nothing to say about it, and if they did it would be a speech issue, but since that’s not what happened, then it’s only kind of relevant. For instance, do you think they would ban a shirt protesting the Iraq war that showed a baby that had been blown apart by a hand grenade? Try to keep up. (It’ll be easier if you keep the insane barely intelligible ranting to a minimum, you’ll have more time to read what other people have written and compose your response.) \*What I find fascinating about your particular pathos here is that you’d think if I were the religious fanatic you want me to be I’d be up in arms about the Liberal schools trying to oppress her for her Pro-Life views. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/255 "2009-07-14T07:42:44Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I get that, but that’s not the point. As **Kimmy\_Gibbler** who is not prone to insane rants filled with non-sequiturs about his chosen hate group pointed out in regards to Tinker vs Des Moines, they cannot ban something based solely on the political content, but that’s not what happened here. They banned it because of it’s graphical nature, and not because of its message. If the Pro-Life movement wanted to create a chartreuse armband then the school district would have nothing to say about it, and if they did it would be a speech issue, but since that’s not what happened, then it’s only kind of relevant. For instance, do you think they would ban a shirt protesting the Iraq war that showed a baby that had been blown apart by a hand grenade? > > Try to keep up. (It’ll be easier if you keep the insane barely intelligible ranting to a minimum, you’ll have more time to read what other people have written and compose your response.) Your argument is essentially that if she chose to wear an armband to represent her points, she’d be okay. Sure. But she’s equally free to choose another way to express. What she wore isn’t objectively profane, or obscene. _Some_ people might think it is, but that’s never been the test. The test isn’t if someone might take offense, or be upset, or angry, or offended. Undoubtedly someone somewhere will be all of that over something. It isn’t relevant. You keep changing the standards. What standard would you delineate such that x is allowed and y isn’t? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/256 "2009-07-14T07:50:23Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Your argument is essentially that if she chose to wear an armband to represent her points, she’d be okay. Sure. But she’s equally free to choose another way to express. What she wore isn’t objectively profane, or obscene. _Some_ people might think it is, but that’s never been the test. The test isn’t if someone might take offense, or be upset, or angry, or offended. Undoubtedly someone somewhere will be all of that over something. It isn’t relevant. You keep changing the standards. > > What standard would you delineate such that x is allowed and y isn’t? The graphical nature, and whether or not it is deemed to be obscene, which is of course highly subjective. I can see why such a shirt might be disturbing to the point of being distracting. Generally in my school the standard was whether or not the image was distracting, it seems to me that is the standard being applied here. The only reason that this made the news at all is because of the political nature of the message. When they asked the nice young metalhead wearing this [NSFW T-shirt](http://www.thevine.com.au/resources/imgdetail/250608050913_cradle_of_filth_t-shirt455.jpg) with it’s political message to take his shirt off, for some inexplicable reason it never made the news or warranted a debate on the SDMB. The relevant question would be whether or not they’d ask her to remove a shirt that said, “It’s a Child not a Choice.”, with no graphics. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/257 "2009-07-14T07:57:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The graphical nature, and whether or not it is deemed to be obscene, which is of course highly subjective. I can see why such a shirt might be disturbing to the point of being distracting. Generally in my school the standard was whether or not the image was distracting, it seems to me that is the standard being applied here. The only reason that this made the news at all is because of the political nature of the message. > > When they asked the nice young metalhead wearing this [NSFW T-shirt](http://www.thevine.com.au/resources/imgdetail/250608050913_cradle_of_filth_t-shirt455.jpg) with it’s political message to take his shirt off, for some inexplicable reason it never made the news or warranted a debate on the SDMB. > > The relevant question would be whether or not they’d ask her to remove a shirt that said, “It’s a Child not a Choice.”, with no graphics. No, the relevant isn’t if she could go out of her way to change the message she wanted to convey in a way that would agreeable to her, but not her preferred way. Of course there are other ways she can make the same point. The fact that she might be allowed to come to school when no one is there and say what she really wanted to say doesn’t make it okay to prevent her today from saying it. The question isn’t if otherwise legally free speech is okay to be abridged specifically (in this case, it wasn’t general, it was specific) so long as they can later on still get to say almost the same thing. She chose to speak on that day by wearing an unoffensive shirt. Indeed, like what? three people here have said that it’s offensive. The school hasn’t provided a single legal reason that her shirt isn’t allowed. I’m curious about that guy’s shirt you brought up: how come you didn’t start a thread on it? I’m sure many people would have argued that that shirt isn’t free speech _in a school_ because it’s intentionally offensive, and it’s obscene as well as gratuitous. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/258 "2009-07-14T08:01:38Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > No, the relevant isn’t if she could go out of her way to change the message she wanted to convey in a way that would agreeable to her, but not her preferred way. Of course there are other ways she can make the same point. The fact that she might be allowed to come to school when no one is there and say what she really wanted to say doesn’t make it okay to prevent her today from saying it. > > The question isn’t if otherwise legally free speech is okay to be abridged specifically (in this case, it wasn’t general, it was specific) so long as they can later on still get to say almost the same thing. She chose to speak on that day by wearing an unoffensive shirt. Indeed, like what? three people here have said that it’s offensive. The school hasn’t provided a single legal reason that her shirt isn’t allowed. > > I’m curious about that guy’s shirt you brought up: how come you didn’t start a thread on it? I’m sure many people would have argued that that shirt isn’t free speech _in a school_ because it’s intentionally offensive, and it’s obscene as well as gratuitous. The point is the ‘distracting’ part. That’s generally the standard by which schools enforce dress codes. They make people change their shirts on a daily basis in High Schools across the country, and smartasses try to pull free-speech about it on a daily basis. I don’t have a copy of the student handbook for that school handy, but if it’s anything like mine was it has a paragraph on dress codes and likely uses the word ‘distracting’ somewhere within it. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/259 "2009-07-14T08:05:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The point is the ‘distracting’ part. That’s generally the standard by which schools enforce dress codes. They make people change their shirts on a daily basis in High Schools across the country, and smartasses try to pull free-speech about it on a daily basis. I don’t have a copy of the student handbook for that school handy, but if it’s anything like mine was it has a paragraph on dress codes and likely uses the word ‘distracting’ somewhere within it. It isn’t just _some_ distraction. You can read the relevant parts of the decision which I posted upthread. Just because a school promulgates some rule doesn’t end the discussion; the rule must be constitutionally permissible. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/260 "2009-07-14T08:09:24Z")
> [@](#): > > McSwain Dress Code describes basic requirements you must > follow when deciding what to wear to school. Good taste and > good grooming are a part of learning. The school shares with > parents, a responsibility for teaching young people the > appropriateness of dress. It is a mark of maturity when > students can freely choose apparel that demonstrates > individuality without deviating from the standard > appropriateness. Use this code to help you dress for school > success: > > 1. State law requires students to wear shoes to and > during school at all times. Students wearing open > toed, backless, or platform shoes must carry an > appropriate pair of closed-toed shoes for PE and > recess. Failure to do so will result in nonparticipation > and may impact a grade in PE. Flipflops, > thongs, zorries, etc. are not appropriate school > shoes. > 2. Mesh, low-cut, or see-through shirts/blouses, halftops > or shirts that show midriff and tops with low cut > armholes are not allowed. Tops that show midriff > will be judged during normal wear, not after being > adjusted enroute to the office. Students will be > asked to raise their arms, if their shirt rises and > exposes their midriff they will be asked to change > their shirt. > 3. Caps, hats, and glasses, other than prescription, > shall not be worn inside school buildings. Hats must > be worn facing front. Altered hats on which names > or insignias have been changed will not be > allowed. Students who abuse the privilege will have > their hats confiscated. We ask that adults attending > school functions also remove their caps or hats > when they enter a building. We encourage you to be > a good role model for our students. > 4. Strapless tops, halter-tops, spaghetti strap tops, and > strapless dresses are not allowed. Tops with straps > must have at least half-inch straps. Regardless of > the size of straps, underclothing cannot be exposed. > 5. No clothing may be worn that shows undergarments > during normal wear. > 6. Any clothing, including jackets, coats or shoes, > which has writing that may be determined to be gang > related will not be allowed at school or school related > activities. > 7. Personal articles, clothing, or manner of dress shall > make no suggestion of tobacco, drug, or alcohol > use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or **other > inappropriate subject matter.** (sic) > 8. Dress, skirt, and shorts length shall be within the > bounds of decency and good taste. Short skirts may > not have slits and should be at least mid-thigh in > length. Shorts must have at least a three-inch > inseam. Spandex or bike shorts are unacceptable > for school wear. Students will be required to change > if their shorts, skirts, or dresses are of an > inappropriate length. > 9. Pants must be worn above the hips, and fit on the > waist without a belt. > 10. Jewelry that creates a health or safety hazard is > not permitted. Large chains are not to be worn or > brought to school. > 11. Any belts worn must be tucked into the belt > loops. Belts may not hang or extend more than 6 > inches past the buckle. > This code shall be in effect at all school-related > activities except where modified by the school > administration for specific extracurricular activities or > specific cases [http://www.mcswain.k12.ca.us/Publications/McSwain%20Parent%20Student%20Handbook.pdf](http://www.mcswain.k12.ca.us/Publications/McSwain%20Parent%20Student%20Handbook.pdf) Number 7 is the relevant passage I should think, and yes, it’s highly subjective. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=14)