Under ACLU pressure, Connecticut school allows student to wear anti-gay shirt

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

Yep. Absolutely.

I do advocate such. It doesn't do much good to give them the negative attention they're acting out for.

If you'd like to address the matter, then do so in a calm, rational manner without malice. Otherwise, just ignore it and go on with your business. In the example provided, you are actually giving them the attention which they are wanting and expecting if you react forcefully. It is actually a reward for this type of behavior.

The funny thing is, I actually know someone that did that, and most people present didn't even notice, as far as I could tell.

Would any teachers want to wager on their school's response to being told that a child was wearing a Jack Daniels shirt to a Drunk Driving presentation at the school?

My Coors sunglasses didn't last long, but maybe other schools have a different perspective on kids and alcohol advertising at school.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

....Authority has no authority if it's doing the exact same thing that the bullies are doing -- basically saying that "we just have to shut these people up" rather than actually addressing the issue itself in a calm, rational manner.

Guess what... that IS bullying when you use your greater power to just force your will on something like this. It doesn't matter whether you're 10 or 30 years older... it is essentially bullying. ....

And what if bullying gays was a recognized problem in that high school? That changes the perception of such a shirt. A crossed out rainbow doesn't say, no gay marriage. It says, no gays.

[mikedenk]

I'm pretty conservative, but I donated to the ACLU back at one point and time. It wasn't their stances on issues relating to "civil liberties" that turned me off, but rather the massive amount of Democrat/leftist/liberal junk mail that piled into my mailbox soon afterwards. It kinda keys you in to the viewpoint of the organization at large, probably just as if you became an NRA member and started receiving their targeted mailings. Overall I do still appreciate the ACLU for many (probably vast majority) of the cases they take on, but I don't support them materially.

This case? Going to have to take the side of the school. I know that the ACLU will take it's conservative "Charity Cases" at times in order to make a pretense of being objective, but they've swung too far over in this case.

The school's original remedy: "Groody complied with an order from a school administrator that he remove his shirt and replace it with one depicting a Wolcott High School symbol, the ACLU said':

I thought that was actually pretty good, but the kid should've countered with "Wolcott High School Administration" - it was the decision-makers he was complaining about. School just wanted to get out of the way and not get involved here - standard (and successful) lawfare by the ACLU.

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And what if bullying gays was a recognized problem in that high school? That changes the perception of such a shirt. A crossed out rainbow doesn't say, no gay marriage. It says, no gays.

No.

Out of context, it says no rainbows.

In context with the rest of the shirt (as well as the date worn), it says I (the wearer) don't want to hear anymore about gay issues.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

In context with the rest of the shirt (as well as the date worn), it says I (the wearer) don't want to hear anymore about gay issues.

Brilliant, I had no idea you were there.

Now that we have that cleared up we can move on to something else you know everything about: What did I have for lunch?

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Brilliant, I had no idea you were there.

Now that we have that cleared up we can move on to something else you know everything about: What did I have for lunch?

It could have more significance to the wearer than that, but without asking him... that's the only message that is clear. I'm not saying that I can read minds, nor am I supporting the message. I'm just translating and being careful not to put my own associations into the translation beyond what is actually there.

You should try it sometime.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I didn't realize a public school was required to provide opportunity for students to express messages at all. Apparently they are not only supposed to allow students to express themselves however they like, but are expected to suppress reaction to it! "Sorry, Jane, but Jim's 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' shirt isn't disruptive. You are, by objecting to it. Three days suspension! "

So public schoopls are there to indoctrinate students with the political opinions of the administrators?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

LOL, it could have more significance to the wearer than that, but without asking him... that's the only message that is clear. I'm not saying that I can read minds.

My point was that it could have more significance to the campus and neither of us was there. The responsible adults on the scene made a judgement call, whether they went over the line or not depends on facts that we don't know, some of which may never be public.

I do know they did the right thing by not fighting the ACLU. That would have been pissing away good money.

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Would any teachers want to wager on their school's response to being told that a child was wearing a Jack Daniels shirt to a Drunk Driving presentation at the school?

My Coors sunglasses didn't last long, but maybe other schools have a different perspective on kids and alcohol advertising at school.

Well, it was a different time, and probably a different place than what you're used to. In the 80's we didn't tie ourselves in knots much at the notion of kids having a little alcohol now and then (or knowing about it, or having less than a bad opinion about it)... especially in a very much rural culture of mostly German descendants.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So public schoopls are there to indoctrinate students with the political opinions of the administrators?

On the contrary, a complete absence of political opinions can hardly be considered indoctrination. Am I influencing you right now about Tibet? Because I haven't said a word about it, pro or con, for or against. How you must suffer under the terrible onslaught of my complete silence on Tibet!

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

Well, it was a different time, and probably a different place than what you're used to. In the 80's we didn't tie ourselves in knots much at the notion of kids having a little alcohol now and then (or knowing about it, or having less than a bad opinion about it)... especially in a very much rural culture of mostly German descendants.

Interesting assumptions.

Not everyone is so different from you just because they have a different opinion or different experiences.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

On the contrary, a complete absence of political opinions can hardly be considered indoctrination. Am I influencing you right now about Tibet? Because I haven't said a word about it, pro or con, for or against. How you must suffer under the terrible onslaught of my complete silence on Tibet!

For me, at least, you are seperate from some of the other veiws taken here. You're advocating getting around undesirable speech by saying (basically) no speech. That's sort of a tenable position - though I tend to disagree with it. What disturbs me most is a subjective prohibition on content.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

...but that isn't what the message actually said. There is no suggestion or allusion to violence in the shirt in question. Yes, you can probably make your own associations and put that message in there if you want, but that doesn't mean it is actually there.

It's kind of like if I were to wear a shirt that said E=MC2 and you take that to mean that I think nuclear weapons should be used against Iran. That's nothing but guilt by association.

I think perhaps you are being intentionally naive here. Context is important. If you were going to a demonstration against nuclear weapons and you wore a T-shirt that says E=MC2, would it not be different from wearing it on an ordinary day? but in any case, the shirt in question did not express a formula commonly accepted as true. It expressed a sentiment that anyone reading it can reasonably assume is an anti-gay symbol, worn on an occasion at which the real problem of harassment and exclusion of GLBT students was being addressed. It is a "no gay" symbol, accompanied by an explicit statemenbt that the occasion is inappropriate. The symbol represents an overall position, not just a political agenda on marriage, and it seems reasonable to guess that the overall position is not one of simple indifference to the issue, or "live and let live."

I suppose this issue has pretty well played out and there's not much point in going on. I don't think a T-shirt with what everyone not living under a rock would interpret as an anti-gay symbol is an appropriate thing to bring to a school on an occasion whose purpose is to further the acceptance of GLBT students. I think that is true even if one agrees with the student that the occasion itself is inappropriate or unnecessary. I would even go so far as to say that if the shirt in question contained only the obverse, an image of a gay couple with a statement that the occasion is unecessary or excessive, it would be a different issue. If you go to an event whose purpose is to insure that GLBT students are accepted and treated equally, a generically anti-gay symbol must reasonably be assumed to be addressed to the basic issue of how people should be treated.

AltF4, sorry I did not think to multi quote in time, but as to the question "why is this an illegal activity in the United States," I am assuming, I think correctly, that the slash through a rainbow symbolizes a general non-acceptance of homosexuality. The case here is not simply in the United states, but in Connecticut, at a school where it is presumed GLBT students attend, in a state where homosexual activity is legally allowed, acknowledged homosexuals legally protected, and civil unions legally permitted. If you go to school with a symbol that is reasonably read to mean "I do not accept homosexuals and their actions and do not believe they should be accepted," this is advocacy of illegal activity, at least in Connecticut.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by bruto

If you go to school with a symbol that is reasonably read to mean "I do not accept homosexuals and their actions and do not believe they should be accepted," this is advocacy of illegal activity, at least in Connecticut.

Wow.

I assume you agree then that in the 30 some odd states that prohibit gay marriage, advocacy on behalf of gay marriage is likewise "advocacy of illegal activity"?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Wow.

I assume you agree then that in the 30 some odd states that prohibit gay marriage, advocacy on behalf of gay marriage is likewise "advocacy of illegal activity"?

This case is not about "gay marriage," though. Whatever the student may have said about his message, the logo involved is an overall anti-gay symbol. If the intention was otherwise then the symbol was inappropriate for both the student and the school.

I suppose that in a place where gay marriage is specifically outlawed, advocacy of gay marriage on school grounds would be at least problematic, and if there exists a place where all homosexuality is actually outlawed and harassment of homosexuals actually encouraged, then sporting any pro-gay symbol would be an act of civil disobedience.

I do not think, however, that the case is the same in reverse. To advocate for gay marriage is to express dissatisfaction with current laws and hope for change. If gay marriage is forbidden, there is little local opportunity to flout the law, and to advocate for change is a goal shared by many people who do not belong to the group involved. To advocate, intentionally or by stupid accident, actions taken against homosexuals in general is to declare that they belong to a different group, subject to different rights based on their sexual preference, and it carries with it at least a threat to violate their rights and to break the law.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So public schoopls are there to indoctrinate students with the political opinions of the administrators?

Ever since John Dewey's "reforms" including 'progressive education and liberalism', but it's all progressives, not just the administrators-that-adhere-to-the-party-line that get chosen.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So public schoopls are there to indoctrinate students with the political opinions of the administrators?

False dichotomy. The disruption is a matter of the whole school not a selective opinion.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Ever since John Dewey's "reforms" including 'progressive education and liberalism', but it's all progressives, not just the administrators-that-adhere-to-the-party-line that get chosen.

Ever notice how it's the people most critical of education who write the worst sentences?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Ever notice how it's the people most critical of education who write the worst sentences?

If they miss the good old days when you could beat people up and call them names, maybe that's what they were doing while the rest of us were trying to study.

[BStrong]

I believe the kid is a dolt, but he has the right of free speech (within standard limitations) and the ACLU was correct in representing him.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

False dichotomy. The disruption is a matter of the whole school not a selective opinion.

How was the school "disrupted"?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by bruto

If they miss the good old days when you could beat people up and call them names, maybe that's what they were doing while the rest of us were trying to study.

So you think suppression of free speech is why we're no longer in "the good old days"?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Ever notice how it's the people most critical of education who write the worst sentences?

Touche.

ps. It isn't a 'my education' problem, just a 'my muddled thinking' problem expressing my ideas.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

You can cover racism without a racist, you can cover sexism without a sexist, and you can cover anti-gay sentiment without a homophobe.

How would one teach The Letter from Birmingham Jail without bringing racists into it? "Hey kids, Martin Luther King, Jr. was thrown in jail in 1963 for, uh, um, jaywalking. That's it, jaywalking. And don't worry kids even though he was jaywalking the white people of Birmingham LOVED him".

[PhantomWolf]

One wonders if those stating that the T-Shirt was disruptive and unallowable would have similar issues had it been a Martian Luther King Jr T-Shirt in 1963.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

One wonders if those stating that the T-Shirt was disruptive and unallowable would have similar issues had it been a Martian Luther King Jr T-Shirt in 1963.

Or wearing a Darwin or FSM shirt in 2013 Alabama.

[StankApe]

Quote:

If they miss the good old days when you could beat people up and call them names, maybe that's what they were doing while the rest of us were trying to study.

good ole days? I still do that now!


NOW GET OFF MY LAWN IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR YA HIPPY!

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Actually I'm going to take this further.

Consider this, should an Atheist student be told to remove a T-Shirt with a slash through a cross and the words "God is Dead - Nietzsche" on the back because it is clearly an anti-religious message is intended to provoke, intimidate, and malign Christian students and allies?

How about a Christian student wearing a T-Shirt with a slash through Darwin and the words "Darwin is Dead" on the back because it is clearly an anti-evolution message is intended to provoke, intimidate, and malign Atheist (and biology) students and allies?

Where does it stop? Do students wearing heavy metal T-Shirts have to remove them so as not to offend those that find heavy metal offensive?

Yes the T-Shirt was offensive, yes it was targeted to cause upset, but that is what Freedom of Speech allows for. If you ban all speech that is offensive and can cause upset to someone, no-one is ever going to be allowed to speak again.

I don't know how long its been since you have been in high school, but in my day ( about 10-14 years ago depending on if you want to count the start or end as the set date.) It was quite common place for Heavy metal and punk t-shirts, along with other various sloganed garments to be banned from the school. The rule of thumb being, if it could be considered offensive, it could be banned. And as a rather extreme punk, at the time, i encountered this many times.

One incidence, was one in which i had a penis on my shirt.

No, i didn't actually have a penis on my shirt. I was wearing a shirt promoting the Misfits album "A Violent World". For those of you who don't know the shirt, or don't want to google, it is a grim stylized depiction of the misfits logo ( the skull from "the crimson skull" for all the old readers) as the face of two conjoined twins. Now the Penis in question was either an stylized umbilical cord, or a device about to commit an abortion, honestly i never bothered to look up the intent, i just liked the shirt ( and still own it today.). After being told that it was assumed to be a penis, i told the principal by no means was it a penis, but was told that someone found it offensive, so it was off limits to wear.

But that was not the biggest wardrobe issue in the school, what immediately comes to mind was the overly popular ( probably simply due to the banning.) shirt with the pilsbury doughboy on the front stating "Poke me and die". This shirt was outright banned as a death threat, and it was very common to see kids walking around, after being caught wearing it, with a strip of tape over the word "Die". Far from stop the shirt from being worn, i remember this shirt being worn by just about every segment of the school. And censored , until the fad died out.

That being said, the school would not be doing a thing against free speech to ban the shirt, they ban anything that could cause a ruckus, the problem is someone has to complain. If no one has the stones to complain about the pro-gay shirts, that isn't banning free speech, that is simply holding religious views in the exact same regard as everything from the Ramones, to the Pilsbury doughboy.

Schools are places to learn, and if there is an element that can be easily removed, that is causing distraction from learning, by all means, remove this shirt, in the same way that cell phones ( in my day it was comic books and magazines.) chewing gum, and those weird shoes that allowed one to grind were banned.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Ever notice how it's the people most critical of education who write the worst sentences?