TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/page ... eId=3.2.1#
He was told to wear a red white and blue shirt to show his patriotism. It just happens his patriotism didn't match the liberal faculties patriotism.

Mr.Scott wrote:http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/page ... eId=3.2.1#
He was told to wear a red white and blue shirt to show his patriotism. It just happens his patriotism didn't match the liberal faculties patriotism.

And of course he wasn't suspended because of the issue, but for something that on paper seems quite seperate. Of course the "willful disobedience" was disobeying an order to voluntarily give up his right to free speech. Therefore, free speech, either way, was being infringed; he could have changed or turned the short inside out, silencing himself, or he would be silenced by the school.

Depends on the dress code at the school.

Where my wife works, all political shirts are banned, as are any tshirts with writing on them unless they are the official school shirt, so it's a dress code violation. After a certain number of code violations, you get suspended.
An excerpt:

* Apparel that advertises or depicts alcohol, drugs, nudity, tobacco products, satanic theses, gang membership, obscene language, political themes, obscene graphics, and /or phrases that are offensive to other will not be permitted.
* Any disruptive or distractive [sic] mode of clothing or appearance that adversely impacts the educational process is not acceptable.

Political shirts in general start fights in school, which is why they are banned

I'm all for school uniforms, honestly. Kids have no 1st amendment rights in school anyway, per many previous court rulings. (i.e. HAZELWOOD V. KUHLMEIER, Bethel School District v. Fraser, Morse v. Frederick etc)

You have to admit, the shirt is disruptive, whether you like Obama or not.

So the words "Obama" and "Terrorists", now painted on a shirt and splashed all over the TV news and the WWW. This seemingly small incident is now being blown way out of proportion. The media has played right into the Dad's plan.

Regardless of the details of the incident, "Obama" and "Terrorists" will be burned into the subconscious minds of the weak.

Eeeeeeeeeeexcellent.

nitrogen wrote:Depends on the dress code at the school.

Where my wife works, all political shirts are banned, as are any tshirts with writing on them unless they are the official school shirt, so it's a dress code violation. After a certain number of code violations, you get suspended.
An excerpt:

* Apparel that advertises or depicts alcohol, drugs, nudity, tobacco products, satanic theses, gang membership, obscene language, political themes, obscene graphics, and /or phrases that are offensive to other will not be permitted.
* Any disruptive or distractive [sic] mode of clothing or appearance that adversely impacts the educational process is not acceptable.

Political shirts in general start fights in school, which is why they are banned

I'm all for school uniforms, honestly. Kids have no 1st amendment rights in school anyway, per many previous court rulings.

You have to admit, the shirt is disruptive, whether you like Obama or not.

Last time I saw a newsreel with students in uniforms they were speaking either German or Japanese. It's mixed messages; our society preaches individuality, then wants everyone to dress, act, talk and even think the same way because individuality breeds differences, over which people are willing to fight and even kill. Differences also mean that you cannot pander to everyone; when there are two mutually exclusive opinions as to how the way things should be, picking one alienates the other side. You get far more votes when everyone likes everything you say; every Communist leader since Stalin has known that silencing opposition of any kind by any means is the key to maintaining power.

Back to the point, students in schools exercising free speech can be interpreted many ways as to whether they have such a right. The following are just a few logical arguments on the topic.

* A child student is their own person, with the constitutional right to free speech same as any other citizen, and to do so at school is no different than anywhere else; any speech or expression has consequences which fall squarely on the student, but those consequences are natural and inherent in human society, and cannot be imposed by government simply for making the expression.
* A child student is their own person, with the constitutional right to free speech, but a public school, as government-owned property, is controlled by same, and the government can impose rules on what is and is not acceptable similar to house rules of any landowner. This may contradict select rights of the people while on the premises.
* A student is their own person, but as a minor is not yet a full citizen of the United States. He does not have all responsibilities of an adult under the Constitution and federal/state/local law, and thus the other side of the coin is that he doesn't have all rights and privileges afforded by same to adults. Thus, children can have restrictions placed on their movement, activities, etc. A youth curfew is an example; children under 17 cannot be out in public unsupervised beyond 10:00. Similarly, free speech of a child, since the child does not even know all the repercussions of a free expression, to say nothing of shouldering them, can be restricted.
* A student is NOT their own person; as a minor, they are legally an attache of their parents. Their parents have the right to free expression, and can delegate that right to their child, but the parents bear direct responsibility to society for a child's actions. A neighbor whose window is broken by a child doesn't expect the child to pay for it, he goes to the parent who has a legal obligation to compensate the neighbor for the cost of fixing the window. So, a child can wear, with or without their parents' encouragement, permission or even knowledge, a shirt with offensive language, but the parent bears any responsibility for the consequences of that shirt being worn.
* A student is NOT their own person; as a minor, they are wards of whoever has legal guardianship. When a child is enrolled in public school, the parents agree to allow the school's administration custody over the child's well-being during the student's time on campus. The administration, therefore, has the obligation to protect hundreds or even thousands of students, and thus must have the power to enact rules that allow such protection of such a large number with a minimum of separation and supervision of students. The parents have final say in how their child is expected to behave, however, like any democratic system, a school board must listen to everyone's concerns and if one student's parents see nothing wrong with a particular action while six other children's parents do, the school board acts for the six over the one.

I personally think the child should be able to wear such a shirt; there's no offensive language or imagery, no drug references, and no active incitement to violence. Any actual incitement to violence would be removed by three degrees at least; an attack on Obama would have to be perceived as an attack on the Democratic Party which would have to be perceived as an attack on all Democrats which would have to be perceived as an attack on the reader's dad which would have to be perceived as an insult to the reader. However, I fail to see the point. The vast majority of fifth graders are more worried about being picked last for kickball than who's going to be the next president. Yeah, we had fake elections; I could probably count on one finger the number of kids in my class who actually knew what issues really underlied the '92 election when I was in fifth grade, and that guy supported Perot. Everyone else was voting for Bush Sr. or Clinton (mostly Bush, even in the People's Democratic Republic of Austin where I grew up) and the number one reason was "that's who my dad/mom is voting for".

nitrogen wrote:Depends on the dress code at the school.

Where my wife works, all political shirts are banned, as are any tshirts with writing on them unless they are the official school shirt, so it's a dress code violation.
...
Political shirts in general start fights in school, which is why they are banned

I believe the article said the students were asked to wear red, white & blue shirts to display their patriotism. This student did so, with a political message that displayed his patriotism (as he believes it to be).

"Patriotism" is inherently political, as is the design or message carried within that red, white, and blue. What if the chosen shirt didn't reflect the stars and bars, but rather the French flag? Cuban? Puerto Rican separatism? CSA or Stars & Bars? What if the student was "patriotic" towards Australia? The UK? The Republic of China? Czech Republic? Iceland? North Korea? Liberia?

I could go down the rest of the list, but I hope it's clear that America isn't the sole owner of the Red, White & Blue, nor of patriotism.

KBCraig wrote: but I hope it's clear that America isn't the sole owner of the Red, White & Blue, nor of patriotism.

Oh, whatever, my friend. You ever been to a NASCAR race? We have the market cornered on patriotism. Listen to any Toby Keith cd.
cornered, I say.

A big thumbs up to this father for showing his son how much more important it is to make a hollow political insult than to stay in school and get an education.

Not many schools have any sort of patriotic displays like that anymore, this guy just made sure that this district (and many other districts watching this) wont try it again next year. Way to advance the cause of patriotism. =)

I would be willing to bet that this one child was not the only one to wear someting political.

I would be willing to bet that somewhere in that school you will see a teacher with an Obama button on.

Finally, public achools these days are no more than indoctrination centers.

The school just needs to reindoctrinate this young lad and then the father needs to be sure and attend indoctrination somewhere - maybe the local college. Obviously he is uneducated.

Anygunanywhere

Not to mention bitter and clinging.

bdickens wrote:Not to mention bitter and clinging.

Anygunanywhere