The fact that you’re getting drawn into this digression just proves the point that this subject is distracting and better left out of the classroom.
3rd trimester abortions are illegal in most states unless the health of the woman is in danger. Even then, the availability is very scarce. There are, I believe, only three doctors in the country which perform them, and the pro-lifers just killed one.
Less that 1/10th of 1% of all abortions in the US are performed in the 3rd trimester, and those are only done for urgent health reasons. Often, the fetus is already dead or dying.
It is, in point of fact, a commonplace deception for anti-abortion crusaders to depict abortion as something that happens to healthy, 3rd trimester fetuses. The reality is that 90% of them are performed in the 1st trimester, and almost all the rest in the 2nd.
See, now I’ve gotten all distracted from the classroom too.
There is a great gulf fixed between saying “there is no absolute right to free speech in public schools” and saying “a tee-shirt that has a picture of a fetus on it used to articulate a position against abortion may be banned by the government.” Your argument is akin to saying that because I am not allowed to protest in my residential neighborhood at three in the morning with a bullhorn and a stadium lights, I am not allowed to hold a group meeting of a dozen interested citizens at my house on a Saturday afternoon, because after all, I do not have unlimited free speech rights at my house.
You can have the last word if you like, DtC, but you don’t have the better argument on this one.
The shirt is not appropriate for a K-8 school. The subject matter is not something that every child in that school has or should necessarily be exposed to. I don’t care if the message is anti-abortion or pro-choice. I say this as the mother of a 4th grader. My daughter would likely find the message disturbing. It’s not appropriate or necessary to subject that age group to political hot-button topics such as this one in a school-setting.
I agree with those who say the setting makes a difference. This was not a high school or even middle school, but a K-8 school with five and six year olds. I can certainly see how the administration would find the shirt inappropriate in that context. (“Mommy - why is the baby gone. Was it playing hide-and-seek?”)
I’m very confused about how one is connected to the other. Dio is right, schools have always aserted that free speech (in the form of clothing or other forms of protest) is a privilege and not a right. Comparing it to your bullhorn situation doesn’t make any sense as you would be arrested, whereas the students are just being asked to remove the offending article of clothing.
I’m pro-life and I fully support the decision of the school to ban this shirt. It is simply inappropriate for the school environment and tends to severely disrupt the learning process. I wonder how many classrooms in that school have turned into abortion debates because of that shirt?
And if I am permitted a slight hijack, this is yet another issue that school choice would resolve. You want your kids to go to schools where this is allowed, great. If not, then the school down the road is for you. Everyone’s happy [/hijack]
And what a horror that would be - for children in a classroom to debate one of the issues that divides this country.
Obviously there is a time and place for everything, but shielding children from controversy isn’t a good thing necessarily.
To be fair, I can understand why they would ban this, but I think it probably counts as overkill. If the school is not banning other forms of political expression through clothing, it may be legally problematic as well.
Many schools in the Houston Independent School District require uniforms. Hogg Middle School is in my neighborhood; it’s a magnet school for Math, Science & Technology. (Go Razorbacks!) The kids wear black slacks & colored shirts bought from the school; there is a page full of further regulations.
Here’s a pdf file of HISD uniform requirements. Uniforms tend not to be woolly & plaidy–for reasons of expense & Houston’s climate.
‘Distracting’, as in controversial? What’s the difference? Should shirts with dinosaurs be banned as well? Not everyone believes in evolution, or even dinosaurs. That’s distracting to a lot of kids. What about Hanna Montana shirts? I sure as hell don’t want my kids exposed to that. What about sports teams? My brother’s kid gets sent to school wearing a Viking jersey in Wisconsin. Is that distracting? It certainly causes a stir in the classroom.
What about books with gay couples in them? That’s ‘distracting’. Should we ban those from the classroom as well? I don’t want to explain homosexuality to my kindergartner anymore than you want to explain abortion to yours.
If it is math class, then it would be bad. And while an abortion debate would be good in a history class, let’s say, I would rather the teacher structure it as part of the lesson plan instead of it being injected into the class when it might not be appropriate.
Ok, I should have qualified “certain messages”, and yes - Dio is right. The school administrators, regardless of your faith in their ability, are the ones there, on the ground watching the reactions and needing to make that determination. I know dozens of high school, and middle school deans and AP’s and not one of them relishes the thought of needing to be the wardrobe cop. They do have to keep order and enforce rules that are written intentionally to leave room for interpretation, because no law, no rule or regulation ANYWHERE, starting with the Constitution, has ever been all that black and white.
“School” is a not a place for such a debate. If a social studies, health or english teacher wants to use the abortion debate as part of an assignment, more power to them, but that’s quite different than a student wearing a shirt around school that they know will cause a stir.
That bolded part is what the school official was citing as the grounds for banning the shirt.
I (pro-abortion, particularly when it involves pregnant [minor] schoolgirls) am not particularly happy about the vagueness of the bolded clause, but I do understand that it needed to be there, if only to save bandwidth. I see the shirt as being a troll, and I personally know how to deal with trolls.
I’m not a school administrator, particularly in the McSwain School District, so I’m not prepared to second-guess their on-the-spot judgement on the question of whether this was a troll that required moderator action, so to speak.
Fox News, I’m looking at you, here: if you have news to report, report it. If you have relevant facts to pass along, pass them along. If you don’t have them, go and get them, then pass them along. Don’t cut-and-paste the (necessarily) slanted narrative from the complaint and pretend that you have informed the public about what happened at the school that day. That’s just obnoxious.
(1) One who trolls another is subject to liability for the resulting harm to the interests of the other.
(2) Trolling is:
(a) unreasonable interaction with another, not in good faith, designed to provoke a reaction, as stated in 7801(B); or
(b) unreasonable adoption of a political position, not in good faith, designed to provoke general reactions of an audience, as stated in 7801(C).
They may have asserted that, but they would be legally incorrect. Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse doors. Students have free speech rights limited by the state’s interest in not disrupting education. But, importantly, this disruption cannot be caused by the content of the student’s message unless the school is legitimately teaching about that content (e.g., the school teaches an anti-drug message). It is not enough to show that there would be disruption because some students would be offended by the content.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification of the doctrine, but its as good as you’re gonna get in a paragraph. In this case, it is open to debate whether the content of the message is disruptive as opposed to its form. That line between the content of the message and the manner of the message is critical in free speech doctrine. An obvious example, provided by Kimmy_Gibbler, is the distinction between loud speech at 3am and quiet protest at a normal hour. That distinction is clearly not about content, but about form.
I think there are plausible arguments on both sides of the question of whether this t-shirt is being restricted because it has disruptive content (not constitutional) or disruptive form (generally OK). Assuming the school does not teach about abortion one way or another, the school cannot legitimately restrict the message because the topic–the content–is inappropriate.
This is what distinguishes Morse from this case. The majority in Morse rested their decision on the fact that this message, to the extent it advocated anything, advocated criminal behavior. Three of the four dissenters agreed that the message was nonsense, not a political message. Alito and Kennedy, in their concurrences, emphasized the non-political nature of the message in their first freaking paragraph.
This stands in sharp contrast to this case, where the political message is evident and direct. Now, if the T-shirt said, “…so therefore, bomb abortion clinics!” or “…shoot abortionists!” then the Morse rationale would certainly be in play.
Nothing in Morse’s reasoning can apply to this case. (Except Justice Thomas’ solo opinion, a concurrence in the result in which he advises he would give school administrators blanket authority to restrict all student speech.)
Distracting as in prone to cause arguments and disrupt the goddamn algebra class.
These are stupid examples and it’s ridiculous to say they have the potential to cause the disruption that something as polarizing as abortion causes, but if does cause a disruption, then the school would have a duty to put an end to it.
What about books with gay couples in them? That’s ‘distracting’. Should we ban those from the classroom as well?
[/quote]
Yes.
It’s not about what parents want to explain. I’m speaking from the perspective as a former teacher, not a parent. The issue is simply preventing distractions in the classroom. Clothing with strident political messages is like a cell phone going off. It’s disruptive and obnoxious.
As to what gets restricted – it’s all up to the judgement of the school. If it’s disruptive or has the strong potential to be disruptive then take it off.
Personally, I’m in favor of school uniforms as a means to take all the judgement out of it, but a policy that would disallow clothing with any text or pictures would work just as well.
