Keith B wrote:We actually had a day where we dressed as girls and came to school. It was for the Powder Puff football game where the girls played flag football and the guys were the cheerleaders.
Come to think of it so did we. The difference was that it was all tongue and cheek when we did it and it was an annually planned event.
The students in the story are doing this in response to something they don't agree with in an effort to defy the authority and dress code set forth by the admin.
Freedom of expression is one thing but in this instance all I see is disrespect and rebellion.
Kids will be kids?
"I don't like repeat offenders, I like DEAD offenders!" -- Ted Nugent
"Not everyone can be born with common sense, some are born liberals." -- M218
This issue has more to do with the right to keep and bear arms than it might appear. I will return to that thought.
The only type of dress code that can be fair and objective is one where uniforms are issued by the governing authority, as in the military.
Every other dress code is arbitrary and subjectively administered, and has exceptions.
For example, school dress codes often prohibit hats in school, to stifle the backward-baseball-cap gangster look. However, observant Jews, Sikhs, and members of some other religions are required to cover their heads, so they get an exception.
Back in 2009 a boy who was part native American (Indian) won the right to wear his hair long in school in a federal lawsuit against the Needville school district in Fort Bend County.
When dress codes use terms like unreasonable, unconventional, provocative, or disruptive, they become entirely subjective as interpreted by school administrators who might be prejudiced or just dislike a kid that rubs them the wrong way.
The story that the OP linked to quoted a school official saying that they wanted to protect the boy wearing girls' shoes from bullying. I'm sure the kid knows what he's getting into. Bullying is not prevented by telling potential victims to keep a low profile, is it?
Several people already stated in this thread that challenging authority (in ways that are not violent or destructive) is healthy. I agree. This country was founded by challenging authority. This state was established the same way. Many of the most important and contentious issues in this country's history were settled by people who brazenly challenged authority.
What does this have to do with the right to keep and bear arms?
Many members of this forum, possibly the majority, want to be able to carry the weapon or weapons of their choice anywhere, at any time, regardless of whose tender feelings might be upset. How is this different from wearing the clothing of one's choice, or openly practicing the religion of one's choice?
When you think of arbitrary authority, think of the post office, federal facilities in general, Army Corps of Engineers "property" (owned by the people of the United States), schools, sports events, and employer policies.
- Jim
Fear, anger, hatred, and greed. The devil's all-you-can-eat buffet.
For some reason this reminds me of The Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA). I'd post a link, but it's inappropriate for the forum.
I do agree that challenging authority is a good thing. These kids aren't hurting anyone, and while I'm not a fan of wearing dresses personally, more power to them.
"When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden. The one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream." - speedsix
seamusTX wrote:This issue has more to do with the right to keep and bear arms than it might appear. I will return to that thought.
The only type of dress code that can be fair and objective is one where uniforms are issued by the governing authority, as in the military.
Every other dress code is arbitrary and subjectively administered, and has exceptions.
For example, school dress codes often prohibit hats in school, to stifle the backward-baseball-cap gangster look. However, observant Jews, Sikhs, and members of some other religions are required to cover their heads, so they get an exception.
Back in 2009 a boy who was part native American (Indian) won the right to wear his hair long in school in a federal lawsuit against the Needville school district in Fort Bend County.
When dress codes use terms like unreasonable, unconventional, provocative, or disruptive, they become entirely subjective as interpreted by school administrators who might be prejudiced or just dislike a kid that rubs them the wrong way.
The story that the OP linked to quoted a school official saying that they wanted to protect the boy wearing girls' shoes from bullying. I'm sure the kid knows what he's getting into. Bullying is not prevented by telling potential victims to keep a low profile, is it?
Several people already stated in this thread that challenging authority (in ways that are not violent or destructive) is healthy. I agree. This country was founded by challenging authority. This state was established the same way. Many of the most important and contentious issues in this country's history were settled by people who brazenly challenged authority.
What does this have to do with the right to keep and bear arms?
Many members of this forum, possibly the majority, want to be able to carry the weapon or weapons of their choice anywhere, at any time, regardless of whose tender feelings might be upset. How is this different from wearing the clothing of one's choice, or openly practicing the religion of one's choice?
When you think of arbitrary authority, think of the post office, federal facilities in general, Army Corps of Engineers "property" (owned by the people of the United States), schools, sports events, and employer policies.
Jim, as usual, has a very valid point...IMO.