Seventh Grader Sues School Over Right to Wear Pro-Life T-Shirt

[Sentinel X]

Are people really offended if someone is a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer......if you are: Grow some balls.

Im assuming she just wore a plain old pro-life shirt...NOT a shirt saying "Pro-choicers are idiots....hahahaa...you losers" (or something like that)...and if thats the case the school is wrong.

 

[Wiseman]

Are people really offended if someone is a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer......if you are: Grow some balls.

Im assuming she just wore a plain old pro-life shirt...NOT a shirt saying "Pro-choicers are idiots....hahahaa...you losers" (or something like that)...and if thats the case the school is wrong.

How bout if you click the links provided

 

[Sentinel X]

How bout if you click the links provided

Heh...I get kind of lazy sometimes.


But yeah, the shirt is not that offensive. Obnoxious?....sure...but then again, you can find obnoxious clothing with a good chunk of kids in middle school

 

[Wiseman]

Heh...I get kind of lazy sometimes.


But yeah, the shirt is not that offensive. Obnoxious?....sure...but then again, you can find obnoxious clothing with a good chunk of kids in middle school

I agree, nice avy by the way

 

[Sentinel X]

thanks

 

[bunk]

It wouldn't bother me personally if I had classmates in school wearing pro-life shirts. Still, it's up to the school to decide. If any shirt causes a disturbance, it should reasonable to ask that the student take it off. The administration would need to provide evidence it did in fact cause a disturbance though.

 

[StorminNorman]

But I'm talking about making it something that we fix before the teacher has a chance to "allow" their performance be impacted.

Is there any evidence at all that teachers are currently distracted? You know, any?

To hell with shoulds, we're talking about realistic scenarios.

Your not talking about realistic scenarios, you are thinking about unrealistic scenarios with logic bent to fit your case.

If the constitution says it then yes I am legally entitled. But just because I have it does not necessarily mean that it is a legal right.

...Yes it does. If the Constitution says you have something, then it is a legal right because the Constitution directly impacts law.

I have reasonable problems with your sources. Do you have any reasonable problems with the sources that have been provided for your review? Don't make this an ad hominem.

There is only once source that has been presented, while I find no flaws with it - I don't think it is more valid than any of the multiple ones I have supplied.

The fact is the burden on proof does not rely with me advocating for the protection of rights but those that wish to remove them. A single study in the midsts of several others that state uniforms do not serve any greater good is not all that convincing.

I understand that it takes time to do studies. That's okay, but I want studies published recently that do not draw conclusions based on previous studies from decades ago.

I have provided at least one.

This statement, especially that last one is just dumb****ery and ********. The constitution does not make something wrong or right because governments do not govern morality.

So you are saying that disregarding the constitution and removing rights protected by it isn't wrong? Really?

You're arguing what has been said and proven, when you have no new thought to be added to a discussion I don't need to have a debate like that void of logical reasons and replaced only with supreme court rulings.

If I wanted to debate what the courts would say I would ask the justices.

Because this is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue! We should not disregard rights as easily as you are advocating.

You can make a fantastic argument that requires the restriction and government control of the press - after all, if the government controls the press than anything dangerous to this countries security never gets out and people across this country are safer. Does that mean it's American? Does that mean we should allow it? Absolutely NOT. It would be so much easier to silence racists, bigots and horrible people - should we disregard our freedom of speech, if only slightly, to remove society of such filth? Absolutely not!

Maybe we should also serve ice cream for lunch and let them teach themselves.

Completely worthless.

At least it's applied thought and not regurgitation of ideas and concepts that you can't think about beyond "BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS NO!"

What you don't seem to be able to fathom is the fact this is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, this is an issue of RIGHTS - the RIGHTS of a student. Therefore what the Constitution says IS the focal point.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Is there any evidence at all that teachers are currently distracted? You know, any?

No, however there is evidence that clothing, even non-offensive clothing can be considered distracting. The article presented an example. A way to prevent issues like that from taking up time and to eliminate the possibility of distractions.

Your not talking about realistic scenarios, you are thinking about unrealistic scenarios with logic bent to fit your case.

I am sorry that we don't all look at the world through your rose-colored glasses, it's not unrealistic to believe that clothing can be distracting. To say otherwise seems like you're not being realistic.

...Yes it does. If the Constitution says you have something, then it is a legal right because the Constitution directly impacts law.

What I am saying, among other things, is "freedom to wear whatever you want in school" is, in my opinion, not a constitutional right.

There is only once source that has been presented, while I find no flaws with it - I don't think it is more valid than any of the multiple ones I have supplied.

So let's say they're both equally valid? Does whoever of us presents more supporting evidence win? I'm not looking for other people to explain why it's a good idea to you, I'm looking to do it myself. You know a debate, I bring up points and you bring up points.

If we wanted studies we could google them ourselves.

The fact is the burden on proof does not rely with me advocating for the protection of rights but those that wish to remove them. A single study in the midsts of several others that state uniforms do not serve any greater good is not all that convincing.

Oh...

I have provided at least one.

There is only once source that has been presented, while I find no flaws with it - I don't think it is more valid than than the ones that were supplied to you.

So you are saying that disregarding the constitution and removing rights protected by it isn't wrong? Really?

Because this is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue! We should not disregard rights as easily as you are advocating.

What I am saying is that we are talking about a matter and whether or not it is "good" or "bad" cannot be determined by the constitution because the constitution can be wrong, misinterpreted, and misrepresented.

I'm talking about the benefits of school uniforms versus the costs of school uniforms. You can say that currently it's not constitutional but that doesn't remove any of the merit of school uniforms.

You can make a fantastic argument that requires the restriction and government control of the press - after all, if the government controls the press than anything dangerous to this countries security never gets out and people across this country are safer. Does that mean it's American? Does that mean we should allow it? Absolutely NOT. It would be so much easier to silence racists, bigots and horrible people - should we disregard our freedom of speech, if only slightly, to remove society of such filth? Absolutely not!

Why not? You make great points but you don't have any reason to support the liberties. "Freedoms are good because they are!" or the "Braveheart" argument is invalid. Freedoms can be bad and regularly we limit and modify persons freedoms for the benefit of the country and that's okay. So why assume that just because the removal of freedom would have to happen that it's automatically a bad thing?

We shouldn't allow the government to control the press because it would give to much power to the branch that controls it. Media is too powerful a tool for any one entity to have so there must be competition amongst media outlets.

Completely worthless.

The argument is that kids, they don't know best, so we have to tell them what to do more often than not. The "kids won't like it" argument does not mean that it's a bad idea! Is ad populum childrenium a logical fallacy?

What you don't seem to be able to fathom is the fact this is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, this is an issue of RIGHTS - the RIGHTS of a student. Therefore what the Constitution says IS the focal point.

We know what the constitution says, but is the constitution right? Should it be changed? Would it be advisable to limit the constitution in this manner?

 

[StorminNorman]

No, however there is evidence that clothing, even non-offensive clothing can be considered distracting. The article presented an example. A way to prevent issues like that from taking up time and to eliminate the possibility of distractions.

Which article?

What I am saying, among other things, is "freedom to wear whatever you want in school" is, in my opinion, not a constitutional right.

And your opinion is wrong. Just like the opinion that the sky is pink or the opinion that Santa Claus is real.

So let's say they're both equally valid? Does whoever of us presents more supporting evidence win? I'm not looking for other people to explain why it's a good idea to you, I'm looking to do it myself. You know a debate, I bring up points and you bring up points.

And none of your points have been really persuasive.

If we wanted studies we could google them ourselves.

Except you specifically mentioned:

I wanted to add that statistically grades are higher in [public] schools that wear uniforms verses those that don't. Source to follow.

You made a claim, then stated you would provide sources to defend your claim and then did not do so.

There is only once source that has been presented, while I find no flaws with it - I don't think it is more valid than than the ones that were supplied to you.

No more valid that the ONE supplied to me. Again, however, I wasn't the one stating "statistics support my stance, and I will prove it".

What I am saying is that we are talking about a matter and whether or not it is "good" or "bad" cannot be determined by the constitution because the constitution can be wrong, misinterpreted, and misrepresented.

I agree - the good or bad is subjective. However whether it is legal is the question here.

I'm talking about the benefits of school uniforms versus the costs of school uniforms. You can say that currently it's not constitutional but that doesn't remove any of the merit of school uniforms.

I agree. Just like the unconstitutionality of bans on the press do not remove the merits of such a proposal. That does not mean, however, that it should happen in this country.

Why not? You make great points but you don't have any reason to support the liberties. "Freedoms are good because they are!" or the "Braveheart" argument is invalid. Freedoms can be bad and regularly we limit and modify persons freedoms for the benefit of the country and that's okay. So why assume that just because the removal of freedom would have to happen that it's automatically a bad thing?

My reason to support the liberty is the fact that I believe in the importance of a student's freedom of expression. I hate the fact that adults are so quick to dismiss a student's rights. I also believe that restriction on a child's dress does not provide significant enough benefits of a school and have seen first hand that such policies can interfere with the relationship between student and administration. This issue in particular was one of my first political issues I fought head-on, I have spent a great amount of time doing research on this topic, have addressed the school board on this issue and have seen first hand negative consequences of enforced school uniforms.

The argument is that kids, they don't know best, so we have to tell them what to do more often than not. The "kids won't like it" argument does not mean that it's a bad idea! Is ad populum childrenium a logical fallacy?

Guess what, ADULTS normally don't know best. The fact is that the argument that "kids won't like it" is not a strong point, but consider the idea that teachers would be negatively impacted by being distracted by non obscene clothing has been used, it fits.

We know what the constitution says, but is the constitution right? Should it be changed? Would it be advisable to limit the constitution in this manner?

The Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents ever written, I am not in favor of ignoring it or making great chances to it.

 

[DarkReflections]

*looks in dictionary*


Okay, that's smart of you not to argue with me anymore since I was just being facetious.

lol that just made my day.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Which article?

The one that started this thread.

And your opinion is wrong. Just like the opinion that the sky is pink or the opinion that Santa Claus is real.

I can't tell if you actually think that you're using opinion in the right context or just confused about the context I used it in. Either way, at night the sky can turn pink and Saint Nick was probably a real person who inspired the story of Santa Claus and furthermore you can disagree with someone without being wrong.

And none of your points have been really persuasive.

********. You've used your 1 point as a trump card from the very beginning of this conversation. If we replaced all of your posts with the words "But the constitution says something different!" then it wouldn't change much about it.

You may not appreciate my points, but at least I make several arguments on the topic and I generally expect several rebuttals.

Except you specifically mentioned:

You made a claim, then stated you would provide sources to defend your claim and then did not do so.

No more valid that the ONE supplied to me. Again, however, I wasn't the one stating "statistics support my stance, and I will prove it".

AHA! I lost the source and couldn't find it so I didn't post it. My entire ****ing premise must be false. Sources were presented to you that you've failed to even acknowledge. I've got no inclination to try and provide additional sources because you won't read them.

I agree - the good or bad is subjective. However whether it is legal is the question here.

Where was that question asked? What the school did was legal they were within their rights to ask a student to not wear clothing that they deemed offensive. We are talking about whether or not school uniforms are a good benefit to schools.

I agree. Just like the unconstitutionality of bans on the press do not remove the merits of such a proposal. That does not mean, however, that it should happen in this country.

What would you have done before the constitution to make decisions about things? How do you know it's such a bad idea, because the constitution?

My reason to support the liberty is the fact that I believe in the importance of a student's freedom of expression. I hate the fact that adults are so quick to dismiss a student's rights. I also believe that restriction on a child's dress does not provide significant enough benefits of a school and have seen first hand that such policies can interfere with the relationship between student and administration. This issue in particular was one of my first political issues I fought head-on, I have spent a great amount of time doing research on this topic, have addressed the school board on this issue and have seen first hand negative consequences of enforced school uniforms.

So your reason to support liberty is because you believe in that liberty huh. Okie-dokie.

Guess what, ADULTS normally don't know best. The fact is that the argument that "kids won't like it" is not a strong point, but consider the idea that teachers would be negatively impacted by being distracted by non obscene clothing has been used, it fits.

So because you felt I made a weak argument you feel like you can make them too?

The Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents ever written, I am not in favor of ignoring it or making great chances to it.

It's a good document. Good is the enemy of great. Which is okay, because it's still being written and still getting better.

And so far we've bettered it 27 times, most recently in the early 90s. Why stop making changes now?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Since this is a public school, I am absolutely against School Uniforms and I absolutely believe the school was in the wrong here.

I agree... I think people should be given the right to wear what every they want at a public school as long as it's not revealing (that's for the school to decide) or does not involve profanity or nude pictures.

 

[StorminNorman]

The one that started this thread.

Just because the school objected doesn't mean the shirt was a distraction. It became a distraction based on the school's action.

I can't tell if you actually think that you're using opinion in the right context or just confused about the context I used it in. Either way, at night the sky can turn pink and Saint Nick was probably a real person who inspired the story of Santa Claus and furthermore you can disagree with someone without being wrong.

When you state "I don't think the Constitution guarantees that right", and the Supreme Court says "the Constitution does guarantee you that right", you are wrong. You are on the wrong side of the issue. It's not necessarily morally wrong, because your intent is fine and dandy - but your statement is simply not correct.

********. You've used your 1 point as a trump card from the very beginning of this conversation. If we replaced all of your posts with the words "But the constitution says something different!" then it wouldn't change much about it.

I haven't needed anything else - because this issue has everything to do with the Constitution. I have provided other points, data that indicates School Uniforms don't improve schools and what not - but my main point remains the same: the Constitution protects a student's right.

You may not appreciate my points, but at least I make several arguments on the topic and I generally expect several rebuttals.

You have provided several arguments, some good, some bad, all of them interesting in theory. That does not change the fact, however, that in America the legality of your proposals are on shaky ground.

AHA! I lost the source and couldn't find it so I didn't post it. My entire ****ing premise must be false. Sources were presented to you that you've failed to even acknowledge. I've got no inclination to try and provide additional sources because you won't read them.

I have only seen one source, which I have acknowledged. Where were the others?

Where was that question asked? What the school did was legal they were within their rights to ask a student to not wear clothing that they deemed offensive. We are talking about whether or not school uniforms are a good benefit to schools.

We are talking about whether uniforms are an appropriate answer. If uniforms infringe upon a student's constitutionally rights - they are not an appropriate answer. (Thus the legality of the uniform question)

What would you have done before the constitution to make decisions about things? How do you know it's such a bad idea, because the constitution?

I would still contend that students have the right to wear what they want, because I find the rights protected in the constitution are important to mankind. The question of "what would you do before the constitution" isn't really a fair one, however, since it's almost impossible to fully appreciate a world without that document when born in the 1980's.

So because you felt I made a weak argument you feel like you can make them too?

What's the phrase, 'when in Rome?' There is still merit in the argument. The idea that resentment caused by school uniforms exists is a truthful one, the idea that such resentment can be harmful to a student-school relationship is far from absurd.

It's a good document. Good is the enemy of great. Which is okay, because it's still being written and still getting better.

And so far we've bettered it 27 times, most recently in the early 90s. Why stop making changes now?

I don't think we have bettered it every time. Find me a group of individuals more intelligent than Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Adams, Ben Franklin and the like and I will start listening to the idea that a better document can be made.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Just because the school objected doesn't mean the shirt was a distraction. It became a distraction based on the school's action.

The shirt caused a distraction. Whether that was because of overreaction or poor shirt-wearing judgment is altogether irrelevant. When dealing with the education of our youth we spare no expense and take little risks, if clothing is a large enough issue that 7th graders are suing their schools then nip that in the bud by requiring uniforms.

When you state "I don't think the Constitution guarantees that right", and the Supreme Court says "the Constitution does guarantee you that right", you are wrong. You are on the wrong side of the issue. It's not necessarily morally wrong, because your intent is fine and dandy - but your statement is simply not correct.

It is an opinion statement. My opinion does not necessarily agree with the Supreme Court at this point but it doesn't change the fact that I don't now nor have I ever felt that the the "freedom of expression" is guaranteed by the US Constitution. I am of the opinion that it is the Supreme Court that is wrong.

Does it change the law? No. The Supreme Court is a court which makes decisions of law not of rights and wrongs but of illegals and legals.

I haven't needed anything else - because this issue has everything to do with the Constitution. I have provided other points, data that indicates School Uniforms don't improve schools and what not - but my main point remains the same: the Constitution protects a student's right.

**** it! Then let's just say we've started our own goddamn country. Now convince me that we shouldn't use school uniforms. And don't say the word "constitution"!

You have provided several arguments, some good, some bad, all of them interesting in theory. That does not change the fact, however, that in America the legality of your proposals are on shaky ground.

In America (Or the United Confederation of Stormin' Walruses) laws can change.

I have only seen one source, which I have acknowledged. Where were the others?

Source + Arguments.

I would still contend that students have the right to wear what they want, because I find the rights protected in the constitution are important to mankind. The question of "what would you do before the constitution" isn't really a fair one, however, since it's almost impossible to fully appreciate a world without that document when born in the 1980's.

It is fair. Tell me why you believe that the freedom of expression should apply to clothes in public schools.

What's the phrase, 'when in Rome?' There is still merit in the argument. The idea that resentment caused by school uniforms exists is a truthful one, the idea that such resentment can be harmful to a student-school relationship is far from absurd.

Resentment I don't believe is very much caused by school uniforms. I think resentment is caused by school.

I don't think we have bettered it every time. Find me a group of individuals more intelligent than Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Adams, Ben Franklin and the like and I will start listening to the idea that a better document can be made.

I see how much you love the constitution but you aren't being realistic or practical at all man.

 

[StorminNorman]

The shirt caused a distraction. Whether that was because of overreaction or poor shirt-wearing judgment is altogether irrelevant. When dealing with the education of our youth we spare no expense and take little risks, if clothing is a large enough issue that 7th graders are suing their schools then nip that in the bud by requiring uniforms.

The shirt didn't cause the distraction, the schools actions caused the distraction. If the school didn't ask the child to remove the shirt, none of this would have happened.

It is an opinion statement. My opinion does not necessarily agree with the Supreme Court at this point but it doesn't change the fact that I don't now nor have I ever felt that the the "freedom of expression" is guaranteed by the US Constitution. I am of the opinion that it is the Supreme Court that is wrong.

Fine.

Does it change the law? No. The Supreme Court is a court which makes decisions of law not of rights and wrongs but of illegals and legals.

And when dealing with the institution of a school, actions must be justifiable legally. If you want to talk purely hypothetically about the merits for and against school uniforms - fine, thats a different debate. But it's a purely academic conversation. I prefer discussion about actual solutions - a solution that goes against the constitution of the country it is being proposed for is a fundamentally flawed solution.

**** it! Then let's just say we've started our own goddamn country. Now convince me that we shouldn't use school uniforms. And don't say the word "constitution"!

Then I would say that I believe a child should have the right to the express themselves with their clothes. I would point out that I do not believe that dictating a school uniform will cut down on conflicts between students. I believe that the tension it causes between students and administrators is a real problem and I think it places greater focus on clothes than needs to be by teachers.

Source + Arguments.

So you are saying you did only provide one source? That I did recognize? Okay. So you were wrong when you said I simply dismissed all your "sources".

It is fair. Tell me why you believe that the freedom of expression should apply to clothes in public schools.

Because it's a form of expression. Clothes are an avenue to self expression executed by people every day. Go to a sports game, you see fans in team colors, team shirts, team jerseys. Go to political rallies, you see candidates shirts and what not. Your clothes do reflect yourself and can be used to present an image or message you wish to state.

Since a student's freedom of speech is not removed at a public school, it is therefore protected at school.

Resentment I don't believe is very much caused by school uniforms. I think resentment is caused by school.

And whenever a school instigates an unpopular policy that impacts a student every day (as is the case with school uniforms) the school caused resentment brings tension.

I see how much you love the constitution but you aren't being realistic or practical at all man.

How so? Explain to me how it is practical to let inferior men change the work of their superiors?