Teen Alleges Bullying from Principle for being an AllyFollow

It's not only a matter of him losing respect for himself, it's a matter of him losing face in the school. Sure, kids already bully him, but if they can get away with that, or worse, if he is the one that gets punished after all of the bullying, they wouldn't stop to kick him when he's down. Possibly quite literally

Freedom of speech has limits though. You're not supposed to attack others based on their race, sex, or creed. As I understand it, the ultimate decision should be left up to the school board. The "n*gg*ers must die" shirt is about about hate speech and serves no other purpose. On the other hand, a pro-gay shirt or even a religious shirt may offend others. So I think the most logical way to handle this situation is to ban t-shirts with symbols or words on them that could offend people. That way, there are no favorites and nobody loses their individual freedoms. If you wear a naked chic shirt or a shirt with cuss words on it, most businesses will ask you to leave. Again, there should be a standard of decency and if you choose to cross the line, people may reject your admission. I feel this is a fair compromise instead of losing all individuality by forcing kids to wear uniforms. Tolerance should be taught in addition to these measures I've described for you.

Edited, Oct 5th 2011 9:16pm by ShadowedgeFFXI

The rule would still just be used to target students at the fringes of society. How much do you want to bet that this school would NEVER tell a kid wearing a shirt with a cross on it to change?

You don't seem to understand what a slippery slope is. I'm not talking about a decay of the rules, I'm saying that if you try to create a blanket rule like that then you better have a good response when someone jacks with it.

If someone says they're offended by ducklings, you can either (a) ban shirts with ducklings or (b) say "get lost" and become the arbiter of whose offense is legitimate.

We do indeed have limits on what clothes kids can wear (I've only made this point 2 or 3 times now in this thread). Saying that those limits are "anything someone finds offensive" is a fool's errand. Just accept that someone is going to have to make real rules and real decisions on what they're going to allow.

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.




I agree with you. It's also possible to have regulations and have a clause for a case-by-case basis. By eliminating symbols like the conf flag, cross,cuss words,and hate speech, we've eliminated most of the issues people will complain about. There is always going to be that one person that complains no matter what you do. The idea is to make realistic common sense fixes without trending on the freedom of speech. There are real rules in place at most schools. I know at a lot of high schools, you can't wear gang colors. You can't wear cuss words, racist lingo, or anything else that is perceived to be controversial.

The bottom line is clothes is the least of our worries though. This kid smells, wears glasses, looks like Steve Rogers pre-super soldier formula, you get the idea. The school board in this case has the right to make rules that will restrict harassment and adhere to common decency. The idea is to not go overboard and blame clothes for the society problems that exist regardless.

Edited, Oct 5th 2011 10:04pm by ShadowedgeFFXI

If you agree with me that "ban any words/images someone might be offended by" is unreasonable and you have to actually approach it from another basis, I'm not sure why you spent the keystrokes arguing against it.

The problem with policy designed to protect a student from their peers is that, at least in the context of gay issues, the number one cause of death is suicide. Hate crimes are EXTREMELY low on that list.

Yeah, real smart to protect someone from their peers by pushing them towards the cause of death that was already more likely.

Jamey Rodeymeyer had been encouraged by his school to keep his sexuality from being too noticeable. His suicide note basically stated that he couldn't stand the lack of support from the people who could actually do something to help him. He specifically stated that he felt his school didn't care if he killed himself or not, but also acknowledged that his friends and family were very supportive. The problem is that he didn't see his life getting any better, because his school wasn't trying to help him. It was trying to keep him from becoming a problem.

The leading cause of death in gay teens is oppression. More oppression does not protect them.

That's all well and good, but Chris Sigler isn't gay, a reasonable dress code isn't oppression in any way, and Jamey Rodeymeyer didn't kill himself because he wasn't allowed to wear a t-shirt that would have caused others to further ostracize him, not gain acceptance.

Edited, Oct 5th 2011 11:59pm by lolgaxe

And my issue with this case has nothing to do with him not being able to wear the shirt. My issue is with the school denying him his right to establish a GSA, while they allow other non-academic clubs to exist, and the principal's treatment of him.

I just wanted to say that good job on your posting lately bro. I see a major improvement, less trolling.

Isn't that what lawsuits are for(after attempting to change policy at escalating levels of the local school hierarchy)? I mean, good on him for supporting his sister, but once you've been told you're in violation of a school policy, I feel you should work to change the policy through more proper channels rather than to continue the violation. To do anything else does create a disruption for those trying to learn.

Well, isn't the case being brought up now exactly what you're saying should be done?

You're welcome to fight for inclusion while breaking the rules as well, as long as he accepts the consequences of breaking the rules.

What school was this? I'd like to look this up. I'd like to know what statute was being violated by someone 'being offended.' I'm not even asking for a citation, I'll happily look it up on my own. It would be great if you could provide a rough time line, also.

Then you just push the problem to police and corrections. We should at least try to fix them while they are young.

Exactly: the educator was in the wrong. An adult who would physically intimidate a child has no place in education, provocation or not.

Suddenly I'm starting to get an inkling of why you didn't last in education

Before I figured he quit; now I'm guessing he's talking about himself getting into an argument with a student, being sued, and having to leave in disgrace. Gives a fuller picture, no?

Of course not; unlike you, I'm not a tool.

ZING!

Edit: Oh, and

All right, so sue and fire the principal, and give the kid detention. A kid being provocative (if a "GSA: We've Got Your Back" shirt slogan can even be called that) is no excuse for physical contact or physical intimidation by an adult, let alone an educator, let alone a principal.

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 10:18am by LockeColeMA

Going to show you didn't read it.

Yes, I did, but we know you don't read articles so don't get cute and pretend you do It's on the Drudge Report too if you wanted to find another article on it. There are two witnesses to the assault, and then a third to physical intimidation (shouting at the kid while standing over him). Not to mention the principal cleared an entire class during the middle of an exam to have his little lecture.

... you don't happen to have any relatives working at this HS by any chance?

If a teacher is making physical contact with a student? HELL YES!

Very offensive, that slogan totally hints at surprise buttsex.

I can understand surprise buttsex being offensive to the people who do not like buttsex.