A solid argument for requiring uniforms if I ever heard one. Abridge everyone’s constitutional rights equally. 
You mean the words you highlighted? I just want to pin you down on this so you can’t go changing your argument.
You are saying that the emboldened text “or other inappropriate subject matter” bit is what you’re basing your argument on?
You do understand what (sic) means right? I highlighted what they highlighted. Otherwise I just quoted the dress code. I was pointing out that they strangely highlighted one particular part of the dress code.
I said number 7 actually.
Ok, then. Let’s have a look:
"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. "
Is it suggesting tobacco, drugs or alcohol?
Is it suggesting sexual promiscuity, profanity or vulgarity?
Or is it under the rubric of “other inappropriate subject matter”?
I’d say vulgarity and ‘other inappropirate…’ would be the relevant sections.
It’ll be interesting to see how the case is decided.
Ok, so to be clear here:
You’re basing your argument on that it’s vulgar, or in the alternative, it’s “other inappropriate subject matter”.
Or, it’s “other inappropriate subject matter” or in the alternative, it’s just vulgar?
The sooner we can nail down what you’re arguing, the faster and less painful this will be.
:rolleyes:
I am arguing that schools have a right to enforce a dress code as they deem appropriate and that the wording of those dress codes leaves it up to highly subjective interpretation.
That’s it, that’s all. We’ll see how the court decides it.
As for you, I think you’re a boring person to argue with as it is pretty clear your interest here is trying to nail me because you think you know what my religious beliefs are, and that this isn’t really about the subject at hand as this is the second thread in three days where you went off on a tangent about how much you hate Christians and directed it at me for some reason. So my interest in this concludes. Good night.
I’m actually doing this in a manner the courts have said that should be used: the words involved. And they must have their ordinary meaning. So, I’m just making sure that you can’t go around moving goalposts and switching up your arguments like you like to do by nailing you down to the specific language (all of which you’re free to choose before agreeing that it’s what you’ve chosen) you’ve decided is relevant. It has nothing to do with your religion as I realized that perhaps, despite your religion, you’re making an otherwise honest go of it.
Of course, I figured when pressed to find some specific legal basis to hang your hat on, you’d beg off. But I’m sure you wouldn’t do that because your point is no doubt rooted in the law, logic and a keen understanding of the issue presented here.
I don’t hate christians. I disfavor idiocy of which all religions have no short supply. My children are all christian; it clearly doesn’t follow that I hate christians given the degree to which I love my children. I require of them, like all others, though the ability to articulate why they believe something other than they’ve been told to believe it by someone whom they trust.
When **mswas **talked about uniforms you responded with your “going, going, going” post about religous fanatics. In my feeble mind I though your were responding to his point about uniform (hence the quote) and since your answer went rambling about “religious fanaticism” it migh be construed that you framed your answer in the context of religion and school uniforms and I tried to point out that non-religious schools have uniforms.
You can now go back to your “religious people are evil and ignorant” posts while repeatedly saying that your opponents never show any proof of anything at all. it seems to work wonders for you.
Yes, by restricting the conversation, eventually, to only the part of the pamphlet he highlighted, and requiring him to finally state once and for all, what argument specifically he was laboring under, your response here makes total sense.
Then, when going through a logical reduction of arguments and excluding the bits he didn’t think fit so he couldn’t squirm his way out of answer, what does he do? “Oh, you’re picking on me for my religion” kind of crap comes up.
It has nothing to do with his religion; it has to do with his not having an argument and when confronted with realizing that, he is “bored” and no longer want to play. That’s fine.
I don’t usually move goalposts, usually someone takes what I said too far and then I try to bring it back to Earth and get accused of moving it. It’s not that I move the goalposts but that people are kicking into the wrong uprights.
As for my religion, you don’t even know what my religion is. I in fact do not adhere to a religion at all.
Well, I am not a lawyer and cannot quote caselaw for you. I just pointed out that it is a long standing tradition amongst schools to regulate dress codes on primarily subjective judgment calls. I don’t know the law behind it, but I do know that it happens daily, it’s just that it isn’t often that the school district gets sued for it.
Well I don’t know why you keep bringing up Christianity then, I’m not a Christian. I do not go to church. So every time you bring Christianity up it’s rather baffling. Most of the defenses of traditional morality I have brought up in our recent debates have precedent in moral tradition across a broad set of cultures, and are not limited to Christian culture.
I only think that the girl shouldn’t be wearing that shirt to school because it could be distracting from the purpose of the school, to educate young people. Would you consider it an infringement of her rights to free speech if she randomly stood up during a lesson about the War of 1812 and started ranting about abortion and was sent to the principles office? The idea that she has every right to wear that T-Shirt anywhere is the same as saying she has the right to talk about the subject at any time and any place. It would be very difficult to establish a curriculum if schools had no ability to establish limits on the abilities of students to speak. My teachers infringed upon my right to free speech all the time, I loved to talk in class.
Sorry, that’s a pretty bizarre conclusion. The two are not the same. Speaking over a teacher on an unrelated topic (or even a related topic) is simply not equivalent to someone sitting quietly at her desk wearing a shirt, whatever is on it.
And the idea that an unmutilated, intact fetus being depicted is vulgar or distracting or provocative, quite divorced from any political message that might be attached to it, is disingenuous to the point of the absurd, IMO. That same shirt, without a message at all but with the same picture–that would be banned, why, exactly? Who is offended by an innocuous picture of a fetus? Who is distracted by it in some substantial way again, and why?
And if we admit the blindingly obvious, that the picture itself is not disruptive, then it’s clear that the shirt is banned for its political message. The question then becomes how any reasonable person could describe those words as rising to the level of disrupting a lesson–again, a girl sitting quietly wearing a fucking shirt, this particular shirt. This is pretty silly.
OK.
Of course any rulebook that has to do with a dress code has to contain some subjective matter or it would be 1000 pages long trying to describe every possibility. How offensive something is or if it is offensive at all cannot always be ascertained with 100% objectivity. You could, in theory, do away with any dress code, but many people feel (maybe incorrectly) that some sort of a code may be desirable in a school environment.
(but he didn’t highlight it, the hightlighting came with the quote)
Private schools can get away with almost any rules they want to.
It’s a different story with public schools. I know this will shock you, but much of the time the teachers and school administrators do not fully understand Supreme Court decisions made in 1969. The principals have usually had a course or two in school law, but only a few of the teachers have. And they forget or don’t care.
They will still try to bullshit you will school manuals telling you what you can’t wear to school. When you wear it to school, they may, indeed suspend you. And they may have violated your First Amendment rights.
I don’t know if this was fully answered along the way. I haven’t read the entire thread – my apologies.
I was a teacher for the twenty years immediately following this Supreme Court decision that is still in effect.
The principal can’t just say that your T-shirt will probably cause a disruption and forbid you to wear it. Look at the ruling again. The principal must show evidence that the item of dress is disruptive before it is banned. It was explained to us teachers that first the item of clothing must cause a disruption. If it hasn’t caused a disruption, it shouldn’t get banned. This is what was drummed into my head from several sources.
I know that the rest of this has been well-covered:
The ruling does mention exceptions. I don’t think it said “vulgarities.” I think it said “obscenities.” You might want to double check. The other was that students can’t advocate the use of illegal drugs.
I was chairman of the Dress Code Committee sometime back in the Seventies. We voted unanimously not to have a dress code. The students didn’t even notice and still followed the general rules from the years before. It was a fairly lax time anyway.
Correction: It is vulgar language that can be banned. One student wore a t-shirt that said, “Drugs Suck!” The school banned the t-shirt. The student appealed, but the ruling was in favor of the school. No “offensive” language on t=shirts either.
I found this information about the ruling online at The First Amendment Center:
Thanks, really good stuff.
Your assertion carries no weight. It’s of no moment whether he highlighted it, internet leprechauns did or no one did. The specific reason it isn’t relevant is that I explicitly forced him to cite the specific provisions upon which he was basing his argument. Since he highlighted part 7, the highlighting becomes unimportant.
No one is claiming that anything must be 100% sure, or objective. Indeed, it’s almost like you haven’t been reading what we’re talking about, particularly given the fact that we all agree the answers aren’t objective specifically because there’s a subject feel to it. That, however, doesn’t mean that we can’t decide the issue objectively. Indeed, the court has done so with the token acknowledgment that there’s some uncertainty in it, which is why the issue isn’t message specific, not content specific, rather based upon the objective world around the message. Will it more than likely lead to a substantial disruption? If not, then it’s okay. Is it vulgar? What is vulgar? Well, there might be some fuzzy area there, but words like fuck, shit, pussy, cunt, dick, cocksucker, wouldn’t pass muster. Essentially, expletives aren’t covered. Nor are threats. Nor is advocating breaking the law. These are all objective.
Since you said he had highlighted it after he had told he hadn’t…
I’m also not claiming that (100%) so you’re not even trying to read my post
You acknowledge the fuzzy areas and that’s exactly my point, thanks for agreeing.
ALL CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT BE KILLED: It is not a threat, but the kind of thing you have to use go judgement.
So we agree: Be as clear as possible, and have good judgement on the tough calls