But that’s just it. A person can’t repeat the same verbal message constantly throughout the day. But if it’s on their shirt, the message is being displayed wherever they go. They’re not just “saying” it in a discussion about religious faith or casual conversation, they’re “saying” it in the halls, in the classrooms, in the bathrooms, without stopping and without regard to the situation.
If a student could manage to say “I hate John Doe, he’s such a jerk” to anywhere near as many people as would read the message if it were written on a shirt, I’d expect the administration to step in then too. A campaign of harassment shouldn’t be allowed whether it’s spoken or written. But saying “I hate John Doe” a couple of times is not the same as wearing a t-shirt that says the same thing all day.
Sure. And? Is that really what bothers you about wearing a religious message on a shirt instead of saying it out loud - that the message is always there?
I wouldn’t. If it’s OK to tell 10 people that Joe is a jerk, why not 100 or 1000?
It’s not what bothers me about a religious message on a shirt, it’s one of the things that bothers me about an offensive and potentially threatening message on a shirt. “Jesus Loves All the Children of the World” on a shirt wouldn’t trouble me; “The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian” would.
So are you saying that students shouldn’t be allowed to call Joe a jerk at all under any circumstances, or that they should be allowed to use school time and school grounds to celebrate Joe Is A Jerk Day complete with t-shirts and flyers? If you’re not going to accept that the context, duration, and prominence of the message makes a difference, it’s got to be one or the other.
The latter, I guess. And Joe’s friends can do the same to celebrate Joe Is A Swell Guy Day. By “school time” I assume you mean their free time while they’re at school; obviously they can’t postpone classes in order to talk about a fellow student.
If you are going to claim that the number of people receiving a message makes a difference, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to tell 5 people that Joe is a jerk? 10 people? 11 people? 20? 50? 100? 500? 600? 1000?
Sucks for Joe if he doesn’t have many, or any, friends. Somehow I think the knowledge that at least no one interfered with the “right” of his classmates to torment him would be cold comfort. So I guess this is another point we’ll just have to agree to disagree upon. I am not going to be convinced that it is appropriate to subject other students to public threats, intimidation, or insults at school, or that students have an absolute right to unrestricted free speech that trumps the responsibility of the administration to prevent harassment of students on school grounds.
Lamia, no matter what you say he’s not going to see that he is wrong. It is more important that bigots have their say than a student’s need to feel safe.
I am still wondering when “private” threats turn into “public” threats. You say it’s OK for one student to tell others that he dislikes someone, as long as he doesn’t tell too many others, but you never say how many is too many.
If a group of students is using their attire to gang up on a single person, it might be time to institute a dress code. I’m not too keen on limiting what students can wear, but banning messages on clothing altogether is certainly better than only allowing clothing that expresses one side of an issue.
And Mockingbird, maybe I was too quick to post… I thought you were calling me a bigot, but on second reading I guess you weren’t. In any case, I am defending everyone’s free speech, bigoted or not. If you don’t think bigots deserve free speech, then take it up with the founding fathers.
If we’re talking about clear and unambiguous threats then private vs. public doesn’t matter. It’s not okay to tell a personal privately that I’m going to beat them up. But telling a friend “I can’t stand that idiot Betty Sue! I’d love to smack her upside the head!” in private is different from saying “I’d love to smack you upside the head, you idiot” to Betty Sue herself, or making a public announcement or display of the message “I can’t stand that idiot Betty Sue! I’d love to smack her upside the head!”
That’s not actually what I said. “I hate John Doe, he’s such a jerk” isn’t simply an expression of dislike, it’s an expression of hatred combined with an insult. “I don’t like John Doe” is a negative personal opinion and should be fine for sharing, in conversation outside of classtime, with any number of other students. It would not, however, be an acceptable message for the marching band to spell out at halftime, or even to print on a t-shirt to be worn to school. Public pronouncement of your personal dislike for another student is not appropriate during classtime or at official school functions.
Anyway, when it comes to context, duration, prominence, etc., of a message, those are factors that administrators could make a judgement call about depending upon the situation. They aren’t robots that need to be programmed with precise statistics for when “acceptable expression of controversial or negative opinions” crosses the line into “unacceptable gossip-mongering, intimidation, or harassment.” Such “programming” would be counterproductive when it came to keeping order or providing a comfortable learning atmosphere, as it would encourage students to skate as close to the line as possible and prevent administrators from doing anything unless they actually crossed it.
If the issue is “Joe is Cool” vs. “Joe is a Jerk and I Hate Him”, I don’t see any problem with allowing only one side to express their message on clothing at school. Same thing for, say, “Proud to be Latino” vs. “Go back to Mexico, you dirty wetbacks” or “Gay is OK” vs. “Homosexuals are going to Hell”. If one side is insulting or threatening and the other is not, we’re not dealing with a debate or an exchange of ideas. Either they can think of some way to express their views in a non-insulting and non-threatening way, or they can be treated like the bullies they are. I don’t see how it’s more fair to ban clothing with words printed on it altogether than to just punish students who abuse the privledge, although such a rule might be considered preferable by some administrators just because it’s easier to enforce.
What about “Joe is cool” vs. “Joe is uncool”, or “Proud to be Latino” vs. “Ashamed to be Latino”, or “Gay is OK” vs. “Gay is not OK”?
I think the problem I’m having here is that the opposite of a compliment is an insult by definition, and therefore by banning anything that could be considered an insult, you would only allow one side of the argument. If someone says X is good, you can’t disagree without saying X is bad, and that could be considered an insult.
If one side of the argument is nothing but insults, it’s not an “argument” in the sense of a debate, it’s an “argument” in the sense of a fight. A fight that involves attacking someone who’s done nothing aggressive, at that. If students can’t express their opinions civilly then they’ll just have to shut up about them at school.
If schools are to be fair, allowing public messages like “Proud to be Latino”, “Gay is OK”, or “Happy Hanukkah” requires allowing “Proud to be Irish”, “Straight is OK”, or “Merry Christmas.” But fairness and reasonable protection of free speech does not require that schools permit displaying “Being Latino is shameful”, “Gay is not OK”, or “Hanukkah is a wicked holiday celebrated by the people who murdered Jesus.” That’s not encouraging a look at both sides of an issue or a diversity of opinions, it’s encouraging harassment and a hostile learning environment.
The Day of Silence does not involve threatening or insulting Christians, or even people who oppose homosexuality, so letting the “other side” have its say shouldn’t involve threatening or insulting homosexuals or people who support tolerance of homosexuality. If anyone at this school was publicly proclaiming that Christians are evil and hateful then they should be punished as well, but judging from the news articles available the only person making Christianity look bad was the kid with the shirt.
The student felt that the day celebrated, promoted, encouraged homosexuality, not that it was proclaiming that Christians were hateful.
The student disagrees with homosexuality. The student didn’t want to get across the fact that “straight is good” or that “Christianity is right,” the student wanted to get across the point that he feels that homosexuality is shameful and against God.
Saying “Straight is OK” wouldn’t have gotten that point across.
Get that? The opposite of “Gay is good” is not “Straight is good.”
Let me ask, if a school for some odd reason, had a “Celebrate the wonders of marijuana” day, and the student wore a shirt with “Be ashamed, our school has embraced what the law has condemned,” would you consider that a threat as well?
The “fact” that Christianity is right? Well, I guess it’s good that you’re upfront about your biases, but that is not a fact, it is an opinion.
If you are correct in guessing his intent, and you probably are, I must say “Too bad for him, then.” He can get his point across outside school.
If some student were upset by school observances of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day because it celebrated, promoted, and encouraged racial tolerance, and he decided to wear a t-shirt during school time and on school grounds expressing his opposing view that integration is against God’s will and black people are shameful, then I’d expect him to be told to knock it off as well. The school system does not exist in order to give every bigot a forum to parade his views. It exists to provide young people with a formal education. Doing this requires maintaining some minimum standard of acceptable social behavior, including limiting the “right” to insult, harass, bully, or threaten other students.
Yes, I know. It’s “Gay is bad.” The opposite of “You’re a good person, and you deserve to be treated with respect” is “You’re a bad person, and you deserve to be treated with contempt.” The opposite of “You’re nice, attractive, intelligent, and worthwhile” is “You’re nasty, ugly, stupid, and worthless.” Isn’t it surprising the way that the opposite of a perfectly acceptable positive statement would be an insult inappropriate for public display in a school setting!
The delusion that we have freedom of speech is just that: A DELUSION.
We have a degree of freedom of speech. Children(and by that I’m speaking of minors) have less freedom of speech than adults which is mediated BY adults.
At home, teenagers have as many rights as their parents deign necessary. The same goes for freedom of speech dependant on the kid as well as the parents. Right or wrong, that is how it is.
At school, teenagers still do NOT have the freedom of speech that an adult does.
There is no right to freedom of threat. What the jerk who was wearing the homophobic t-shirt was doing was spreading shame and YES, bringing forth a supernatural threat. The arrogance and egocentrism that some Christians think they have the one right and true interpretation of the Bible and then can force it on everyone else regardless of the faith of their target is loathesome.
If someone came to school wearing a ‘Jesus Saves, Satan Spends, HAIL SATAN!’ t-shirt, more often than not the kid would be sent home if not punished. If any other faith was on a t-shirt other than Christianity in that case, there wouldn’t be a chance for it to be defended in our culture. I mean defended in the realm of public opinion. The ACLU and others would be there for the person, but the mass of our culture would be against it.
This is not only a case of bigotry, supernatural threat, and proselytizing. This is also a case of a severe double standard. Because it is a Christian t-shirt espousing a BIGOTED point of view, more are behind this kid.
ALL students should be able to go to school without seeing their fellow students walking around as billboards saying they are evil and wrong for just being. Just as I cannot go into a theater and scream fire without repercussions, this kid cannot walk into a day to enlighten on gay sensitivity wearing a homophobic t-shirt without some steps taken.
But, I see Mr.2001’s defense being an annoying pedantic version of hairsplitting and pseudo Talmudic law arguing. How does one argue for the right to force one’s bigotry on others?
I don’t know how you can think that “Gay is not OK” is not the other side of “Gay is OK”. If a school only allows certain groups or ideas to be praised, but not criticized, then the school is forcing its own views on students.
In that case, I’d expect the ACLU to step in and prevail in court, just like I believe they’ll prevail in this case.
If they don’t allow criticism of something, they shouldn’t allow praise of it either.
Freedom of speech is somewhat limited at school, but only speech that “materially and substantially” disrupts classes or other school activities, or that is “vulgar or indecent” (see Tinker v. Des Moines).
Force it on everyone else? The same way my shirt “forced” the Blue Man Group on everyone at the grocery store today? I would hardly call that a problem. You can read the message, frown, and then direct your eyes elsewhere.
Probably. That’s what happens when the country is mostly Christian. But it’s not just the ACLU that would be on the kid’s side… the law would be on his side too. My high school had a rule banning “satanic” clothing, but I never heard of anyone being punished under it, and as far as I can tell, that rule was illegal.
Heh. What double standard? If anything, I am less sympathetic to him because of his religious views, not more.
I’m going to astonish the world (and especially Mr2001) by saying that I mostly agree with what he’s saying. I do not see supernatural threats as a “threat.” “I’m going to beat your ass” is a threat. “I’m going to hurt your dog” is a threat. “God is gonna get ya” is not a real threat in that same sense. Could one complain to the police, saying that someone “threatened” them because they said that God was gonna get 'em? No. I don’t believe so. But, I await cites convincing me otherwise. I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
However, if the school wants to enforce a “don’t be an asshole” policy (which I hope they do, and believe that they should), then such speech as “God hates gays” or “Gay is not OK” or whatever would be not allowed. And rightfully so. I don’t want to see such nasty, mean-spirited statements tolerated at school either. But I’m just not buying that they are “threats,” at least not on any classic, commonly understood context.
The facts, as they were, in his mind. Excuse my wording.
Why then, shouldn’t the supporters of this day be forced to do likewise? Because you (and the school) judge their message to be “good” while you judge this message to be “bad.”
Either the school offers an open forum or it does not. No matter how much you seem to want it to be so, the school cannot hand-pick the views which are allowed to be presented. The school cannot say, “Ok, we’ll allow discussion about homosexuality, but only about how it’s great.”
And isn’t it surprising that when someone takes the opposite stance on a position, it’s easier to silence them than to actually debate them?
Ah. So if students are allowed to say things like “Betty Sue is a really nice girl!” or “Betty Sue would be the best Homecoming Queen!”, we have to allow anyone who doesn’t think Betty Sue is all that great to have a public Five-Minute Hate against her at school? It’s either ban all praise along with all criticism or give kids a free reign to be as vile and hateful as they can? Either option is repellant. Thank goodness there’s a middle ground, as much as you’d like to exclude it. I can hardly believe you think you’re advancing the cause of free speech with these arguments. If faced with a black-and-white choice between total anarchy and silencing all expression of student opinion on all matters, I don’t think there’s a school in the world that wouldn’t chose the latter.
I don’t think so either, but schools don’t have to permit everything that’s not illegal. After all, it’s not illegal to chew gum or wear a hat.
As I’ve mentioned in school-related threads before, I was lucky enough to attend a high school with a very strict “non-harassment policy.” It was sort of a pioneering school in that regard, but I think other schools are beginning to follow suit. The non-harassment policy was simple but powerful:
no physical harassment or threats of harm to people or their property
no verbal abuse or insults on the basis of religion, politics, sex, race, sexual orientation, background, or individual personality (that last one was important as it banned insults like “slut” and “nerd”)
no written messages involving any of the above
We actually had no dress code at all, the only restrictions on clothing (other than public deceny laws!) fell under #3 of the non-harassment policy. No one during my high school years ever showed up with a “Homosexuality is Shameful” shirt, but I’m certain it wouldn’t have been allowed. The student would have been told why the shirt was in violation of the rules and given the chance to turn it inside-out or cover the offending message with duct tape. If he didn’t cooperate, he’d have been sent home.
This policy resulted in a comfortable learning atmosphere where people could freely exchange ideas without fear. It wasn’t an Orwellian nightmare where anyone who said “the wrong thing” was punished. It was, as high schools go, a virtual paradise where we could say pretty much whatever we wanted, no matter how controversial, as long as we didn’t insult or threaten anyone.
I’m not certain that they are either, but neither am I clear on why they wouldn’t be. But as interesting as I find the question of what precisely defines a threat, I don’t think I’m going to be able to work it out here and now.
No, because the supporters of the Day of Silence weren’t insulting, intimidating, or threatening anyone. And I haven’t seen evidence that the school judged their message to be “good” or officially endorsed the Day of Silence. It is, however, impossible to prevent students from being quiet if they want to be quiet. If they refused to participate in class then that might be a discipline issue, but when the gay-straight alliance group at my college sponsored a Day of Silence we were specifically told that normal class participation was fine. It was only social conversation that was to be given up. Even if the school didn’t support the message of tolerance and sympathy advanced by the Day of Silence, how could they block it? By making students talk with their friends when they didn’t want to?
The obvious protest to a Day of Silence would be to refuse to observe it. No one was stopping anti-gay students from engaging in normal social conversation on that day. By talking as usual, they’d be expessing their disdain for the whole idea. Or they could arrange a counter silent day at a different time to express how they felt the righteous Christian viewpoint was being stifled. But an appropriate response to a quiet, peaceful, and non-confrontational expression of sympathy for oppressed people is not a public display of insults against everyone involved.
It does not offer an “open forum” if by “open forum” you mean “anything goes.”
It can and does set restrictions on what kinds of views are allowed to be displayed in school. I haven’t seen the handbook of this particular school, but I can all but guarantee you that it has rules against wearing t-shirts with obscene words or pictures or that promote drug use or other illegal activity. Such rules are pretty standard in American public schools. Many schools also have rules against insulting messages on clothing, and it is my understanding of the case that this one did. If they said “Insults against these groups are okay, but against those groups are not,” that would be unfair. A universal ban on all insulting t-shirts is not.
It can say “We’ll allow discussion about homosexuality, but all students must refrain from wearing insulting t-shirts about one another.”
There’s nothing to debate when it comes to insults. People whose position consists solely of insults are not interested in debate. If this student couldn’t manage to come up with a way to express himself without insulting homosexuals, I have no problem with “silencing” him on that matter. If another student couldn’t come up with a way to express approval of homosexuality without insulting heterosexuals or Christians or some other group then they’d have to shut up about it too. Schools should not be places where students are allowed to freely insult one another. They all too often are, but that is certainly nothing to strive for.
I’ve just finished searching through quite a few news articles on this case, and have been unable to turn up anything stating that Poway High School officially endorsed any Day of Silence observances. I couldn’t find anything saying that they didn’t either, but that seems like something that someone would have mentioned were it the case. Poway appears on the Day of Silence website’s list of participating schools, but the site also carries this disclaimer:
The Day of Silence page also defines the event as “a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bias unacceptable in schools.” This doesn’t sound “pro-gay” so much as “anti-anti-gay.” I’m sure most participants are pro-gay, but it’s certainly possible to believe that schools should not be biased against LGBT youth without actually favoring, supporting, or championing homosexuality.
Numerous sources (including the San Diego Union-Tribune and the AP) quote the Poway dress code as forbidding clothing with messages that include “derogatory connotations directed toward sexual identity.” The lawsuit against the school claims that this policy is too broad and vague, although it seems clear enough to me.
The Gay & Lesbian Times quotes the same passage from the dress code and also says that the school had a policy against all shirts with homemade slogans, but I couldn’t find another cite to corroborate that last part. The GLT also reports that Poway students say Day of Silence participants in past years have been taunted and assaulted, and that an unnamed school employee confirmed this. I couldn’t find corroborating sources for this either, but I would be (pleasantly) stunned if it weren’t true.
There have apparently been anti-gay shirts worn during the Day of Silence at Poway in past years, but I was unable to find any mention of pro-gay shirts being worn by anyone there. I would be rather surprised to hear that there had been, for the reasons I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Even if students attend a very gay-friendly school, they are unlikely to want to risk an unpleasant encounter with gaybashers while going to or from school.
I have also been unable to find any mention at all of students being prevented or even discouraged from expressing an anti-gay opinion in any actual discussion on the issue. None of the articles I found referenced any policy that would have prohibited the student from saying “I think being gay is wrong”, nor could I find any hint that any student at Poway was ever disciplined for saying such a thing. They do have rules against speech that incites violence or disrupts school, but they don’t seem to have done anything to “silence” anti-gay speech beyond enforcing their dress code. They don’t seem to have done anything to promote pro-gay (or even anti-anti-gay) speech either, other than not preventing students from participating in the Day of Silence – and given the nature of the event, I cannot think of any reasonable way it could have been prevented.