It's a Gun.

[jackofallgeeks]

So, Here is
an article dealing with the case of a highschool student who got two days of
detention for wearing a particular T-shirt (or, specifically, for not
turning the t-shirt inside out to hide it's message) and the family who is
suing the school district over it.

The offending t-shirt showed the image of a military-issue pistol and had
the words "Volunteer Homeland Security," "Special Issue Permit No. 91101"
and "Terrorist Hunting Liscence" on it. A bit more enthusiastic for my
tastes, and the references to Homeland Security and 'terrorist hunting' make
me a little uneasy, but generally a clever and harmless t-shirt, I'd say.
The shirt was given to the boy by his uncle, who is currently serving in
Iraq, and the boy wore it in his honor.

The school apparently asked him to turn the shirt inside out and when he
didn't gave him two days of detention. That's pretty severe for wearing a
t-shirt, even one with a message you maybe disapprove of, and some might
argue it's a violation of the boy's constitutional right to free speach.
That's exactly what the boy's parents (and their lawyer) are arguing in
their suit.

The school has apparently made the defence that they need to keep kids safe
in a time when school shootings are occuring at such a rate that some of us
hardly notice them any more. And while this is probably true... I mean,
look at the facts here. A kid got two days of detention for wearing a
t-shirt that *showed a gun*. The mere *image* of a gun is dangerous to
students? Nevermind that the t-shirt is patriotic and no less aggressive to
American citizens than the Homeland Security it references. It's a T-SHIT
for cripes' sake.

What we have here is a case of zero-tolerance towards guns taken to such an
extreme that we're to the point of zero-tolerance towards their very image.
And zero-tolerance often translates to zero-common-sense. It's just dumb
and, to be honest, this sort of stuff really gets nder my skin.

Comments

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

That makes about as much sense as a bunch of people being so offended by a political cartoon in a different country that they riot and kill a bunch of their own people.

Knee-jerk reactionism is pretty much the same whether it's built out of a culture of fear or a culture of hate.

About as much sense, maybe...

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

"Knee-jerk reactionism is pretty much the same whether it's built out of a culture of fear or a culture of hate."

Well, I'm not sure I'd equate detention and murder, but I think I get your point. :p

Re: About as much sense, maybe...

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying it's anything like the same scale. It's about equally rational, however.

Re: About as much sense, maybe...

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. That I think I can agree to.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

::Sigh:: Unfortunately, the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case has pretty much assured that this sort of thing will pass legal muster. SCOTUS has ruled that free speech doesn't apply when you're in school (or, in the BH4J case, even visible from a school).

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

As true and unfortunate as this is, I'm personally more concerned with what's right rather than what's legal. As far as that goes, it would take the courts to over-rule the courts anyhow, so... Frankly, I think it's just one more point against the state of our educational system, and the execution of our government in general (zero-tolerance is very popular).

Point of fact, I'd support the BH4J shirt, too.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Oh, that was very much a sigh of commisseration. I just meant to say that, alas, we're not likely to see this sort of thing go away.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes; I caught the commiseration. The clarification I made (about the BH4J) was more for other people's benefit, really. And the bit about right vs. legal was, again, just clarifying my general stance, not that you, personally, needed to hear it. :p

[nif.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit more sympathetic to the schools.

As much as it grinds my gears, I have to say that schools need these no tolerance rules in order to function. So you let a kid wear a shirt with a gun on it one day, and the next five come in with anti-Bush shirts. And the next 50 kids come in with various political messages, including ones that support or denounce drugs, alcohol, religion, sex, absolutely anything they can get away with. And then kids start fighting about it or one goes crying to the counselor that they feel threatened or insulted by a shirt and the school is liable. Now the school is under fire for not protecting all its students and it turns into a media nightmare. This is in no way far-fetched.

The whole situation is comparable to parents that complain that their kids shouldn't have limited bathroom hall passes. After all, what's more basic than the right to pee? Until you let kids go whenever they want and suddenly a whole host of problems intensify.

Schools are caught in these no-win situations. So what's better? No rules and an opportunity for chaos or strict rules that are occasionally unfair?
Knowing kids as I do, I have to say that given the slightest chance to take advantage of something, they will every. single. time.

I don't know. It's easy to pick out the flaws in the school system, but it's a lot harder to come up with a solution that won't create a million more.

[photoholic62.livejournal.com]

You beat me to it and said it better than I did. Working in a high school, I can tell you that there is precious little control as it is. The same parents who scream "this is not fair" are the same ones hollering when their child is hurt, or when their child fails because they went to the bathroom for 45 minutes of class, then couldn't pass the test.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I try to make it a point not to argue my views on the school system with teachers; my experience is that it never goes well.

That having been said... You're probably right: it probably is the case that our schools need these sorts of zero-threshold rules, and accompanying punishments, or they wouldn't be able to function. But I would then hold that this is yet another hole in the sinking ship's side, and one more point for the sort of offenses schools commit against kids. Yes, given an inch, some kid will take advantage. and given a large enough population, advantage will be taken by some student or group of students for every inch they're given. Every single time. But not every student is a trouble maker, not every student will take advantage. (My general argument boils down to "not every student is the same, but the school MUST treat them as if they are.") I have ideas that would make education more profitable for both teachers and students, but they generally require a complete overhaul of what we have going now, and I don't expect to see THAT in my lifetime. In the meantime I'll fight for what I think I can get.

[raen.livejournal.com]

there should be more politics in schools actually. The reason a lot of young people don't vote is because they don't know what's going on at all.

[photoholic62.livejournal.com]

It's not really about the gun. It's about the rules, and the dress code. If the school rules say "no t-shirts with logos, advertising, or pictures allowed" then it doesn't matter what's on the shirt. How can it be OK to come to school with a picture of a gun on your shirt, but not porn? What about a band advertisement as opposed to a beer advertisement? Unless you want to hire a staff just to decide what is OK and not OK on a shirt, you have to say no to all of it.

Breaking the rules is not about if one agrees with the rules or not. If he can wear his gun picture, the next kid can wear a picture with sexual content, or illegal activities such as smoking pot. In school, it has to all be a no. He broke the rules, he was given the chance to fix it, he refused, he faced consequences. We can't say if the consequences were "too severe" because we don't know this child's behavioral history. If it was a first offense, then yes it was too severe. I'm betting it wasn't, however.

We all have to follow the same rules in the workplace, do we not? School is a good time to get used to that.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

"It's about the rules, and the dress code."

Right. Rules that I would argue are... inappropriate, for lack of a better word. If it turns out that the dress code was in violation by the simple fact of having a logo on the shirt, then I may be more sympathetic; the article doesn't seem to indicate that's what was at issue. Anyways, Nifer's logical extension aside, I find it hard to believe that enforcing a dress code has very much to do with protecting kids in an era of school shootings. That's the school's claim, not mine; they're the ones who seem to make it all about the gun.

It's tangential but, from an adult perspective, I think breaking the rules is very much about whether one agrees with them or not. Though I hate it when other people bring it to bear, Civil Rights is a great example of this. Any rule or law which is unjust ought to be struck down and, more to the point, we have something of a moral imperative to resist such rules and laws.

Of course that's tangential because, as we all know, students are rarely adults, and schools are not designed to be "little societies" mirrored off of "the real world." They are, and I don't mean to sensationalize or exaggerate, much more like prisons. I believe (though I may be wrong) that the public school system (and compulsory schooling in particular) was originally mandated to protect kids from industrial exploitation and to keep them off the streets (and forming gangs). Hardly the basis I would hope for my educational system.

And, generally, no, we don't follow the same rules in the workplace. There's a dress code, yes, but the consequences of breaking it are, in my experience, rarely more than a slap on the wrist or a stern talking to. (The difference of course being that [1] most workers want to be at their job, to make money; students rarely have such motivation, and [2] you can fire a disruptive worker, but you're not allowed to kick out a student, even if they wanted to be there*).

The relationship between me and my boss is nothing like the relationship I had with any of my teachers, even up through graduate school: in school, you are always inferior. A good manager at least tries to treat their underlings like fellow human beings. You can argue that kids aren't mature enough, or that they ARE inferior in this or that quality, but I'd argue against the claims except in particular cases.

School is a "good place" to "get used" to a lot of things people say exist in "the real world." I disagree. I think school is, generally, a bad place to develop any long-term habits one intends to apply to the real world. School, as I've said, does not mirror the real world and, if any, the things people say kids need to "get used to" in school are societal ills that I think we'd be better off without, and better off not perpetuating in our children's educations.

:p You're a teacher, and as I told Nifer, I try to avoid expressing my opinions about schooling to teachers. So, I'll end my rant.

[photoholic62.livejournal.com]

I think breaking the rules is very much about whether one agrees with them or not.

First, I meant to say following the rules is not about agreeing with them or not. (Please listen to what I mean not what I say!:) ) No, not all kids are bad. Yes, some kids WANT to be in school. But yes, some kids would rather disrupt, abuse, and hurt folks rather than follow a simple rule about what kind of shirt to wear. The rules are there to protect all the students.

Second, I'm not a teacher yet. I'll be back in school for that soon, but until then, perhaps this discussion is safe? :)

Schools do need dress codes. Schools do need rules. No person is going to agree to all the rules. Some people will not agree with any rules. When you have 4000 or more people crammed into a building 8 hours a day, there must be blanket rules.

You say it's not the same at your job. That you can break the rules but you won't be suspended. I say that you can be suspended, or fired. Of course, again, not everybody, but generally speaking, ... and especially the kids we are talking about here ... will have to follow rules at the job, or they will be suspended or fired.

It's also about respect. If you were to come to my house (which would be awesome, but aside from the point) and I said to you, for example ... We have a rule, no shoes on the couch, then you would respect that rule and you would keep your shoes off the couch. If I went to your house and you said "please put your shoes on the couch" then I would respect you and do that, even though I disagreed with the concept.

Where ever you are, there are rules that must be followed. It's a fact of life, and they are very important in a school. Enforcing the rules is important as well, because when you start picking which ones to not enforce, you start seeing a bit of anarchy.

As far as treating the kids with respect instead of like underlings, I agree. I call the kids "sir" and "ma'am." I follow ALL the rules they have to follow (even though there are several I don't have to follow) and I follow all the rules that I have to follow, even if I don't agree with them. And trust me, I work with some bottom of the barrel kids in Special Ed ... as well as some cream of the crop ... but mostly they are troubled kids who have serious issues. They deserve an education too. They are disrespectful, violent, abused/abusive "throw away" kids. These are the ones that need the rules more than kids like my own daughter, for example. If I let a kid wear a shirt with a gun on it today, there would be major repercussions in the form of "it's not fair to let him wear that and not let me wear this shirt of somebody dismembering someone else."

My answer when the kids start that "not fair" thing? "What's 'fair' got to do with it?"

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I may agree a little bit more with your re-worded "following the rules is not about agreeing with them or not." I'd have to sit and think about exactly why, though.

-smirk- Even if you aren't a teacher (yet), Nifer can hear us... :p

I agree, with 4000 kids for 8 hours a day with some percentage their by force alone: yeah, you need these kind of rules. But rather than agree that these rules are necessary for the system to work, I argue that the system is broken (in part) because it requires these rules to work. Systems that are broken ought to be changed.

There is, I think, a slight difference between saying, "dress codes are not as strictly enforced in The Real World" and "you don't have to follow the rules where I work." We do have rules, and some of them are very, very binding. But the rules are reasonable, the punishments commensurate. You can still get fired at my job, but wearing jeans won't do it.

I agree whole-heartedly with you that following rules is about respect, but I don't give my respect out freely or particularly easily. I respect you, as a friend and highly-intelligent woman; I would remove my shoes. I expect my friends to respect me, in turn, out of that mutual friendship and, well, respect. You are very right to respect you students, and I commend you more than I can express. But I don't respect institutions very much, as a general rule. I didn't respect many of my teachers in my 16 years of education, because they proved themselves unfit for my respect. Some I respected a lot, and the difference was noticeable. But I won't respect someone who doesn't respect me, and I think it's wrong to ask students to do otherwise. Schools don't respect students. Many administrators don't respect students. A lot of teachers don't respect students. So, what basis of respect are you to appeal to for these rules? There is, I think, a basic level of respect due to all people, but that respect doesn't extend far enough to cover this sort of thing, I think. What's more, the zero-tolerance, no-argument, and excessive punishment undermines *all* respect. Even if you respect someone, it's hard to maintain that respect when they ask (or worse, demand) that you do unreasonable things.

-smirk- I am the last person to ever, ever argue "that's not fair." I hate 'fair', but that's another story all together. Though, I must confess I'm a bit distressed that you might equate a picture of a gun and a picture of bodily dismemberment; much as it disturbs me that the same would be compared to pornography on kids' shirts. I'm pretty sure you'd agree there's a difference between an image of an inert weapon and a depiction of bodily violence, just as pornography is patently more indecent than the same inert gun. A gun, in itself, inert, is not offensive.*

(*To the reasonable person, since I'm SURE you can find someone who's offended by just about anything these days...)

[photoholic62.livejournal.com]

But you see, there is no way to draw those lines. You can't draw a line saying "this t-shirt pic is ok, but this one isn't." What offends me may not offend you. Offensive is, in itself, a relative term. So, you have to go with "no pics on shirts." At our school, they have even had to take it further. You can't have a bandanna hanging out of your pocket, or slung across your shoulder. It is because of gang colors. They can't just say "no RED or BLUE bandannas" they have to say "no bandannas."

It wasn't ME who was comparing the two, but your average kid who figures the longer he debates about his shirt, the less time I'll have to teach him about the 8 main taxonomic ranks. Because he doesn't care a bit about that!

One thing I want to say about our school, and perhaps schools in general as I doubt that our school is coming up with any ground breaking ideas ... we have begun to recognize that some kids will never do well in school. It doesn't mean they are failures, it just means they can't cut it there, and never will. We now have a couple programs in place that allows these students to go to work instead of coming to school. They are still getting their school credits, and they will graduate, but not in the academic environment that some of them struggle against. Most of them are now excelling at their jobs and their lives. So, we are teaching them to succeed rather than fail and fail and fail.

We need more of that and less of the other side of the coin, which is the ones who don't finish school because they go to jail instead.

You agree with my corrected statement because the way I wrote it the first time was wrong. Breaking the rules is about disagreeing with them. Following the rules is a different story.

And, you touched on a point I meant to make earlier as well. Many TEACHERS need these rules even worse than some students!!

As far as your original example, again, we do not know if this is this student's first and only offense. I doubt he would have been suspended if this is the first trouble he ever got into. These offenses do compile, with a more severe punishment the more record there is.

Wow, my reply is all over the place this time. Sorry...

[nif.livejournal.com]

OMG. I love the vocational options your school gives! I wish more schools let kids work in the real world and learn what it's like to succeed for a change. I have SUCH a huge problem with the mentality (which is heavily promoted at my school) that ALL kids should go to college, when in reality most of these kids aren't college material. I don't mean that in a "they're worthless and not smart enough" way. I mean that they aren't academics. It used to be, back in the day, that people who were suited for the purely impractical world of academia went to college and got stuffy degrees and, in turn, taught college and nothing else. Nowadays you have to have a degree to Be Somebody which is a total crock. Let kids learn practical trades instead of going to high school! If they don't want to learn esoteric math, then FINE. If all they want to learn is esoteric math, then FINE. Our graduation rates would shoot through the roof if we just stopped adhering to NCLB standards of ridiculousness. And you know what? Intead of being told they are WRONG and FAILURES and LACKING for years and years, these kids would walk out with a sense of accomplishment, ability, and self-worth. Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

Sorry.
End rant.

[photoholic62.livejournal.com]

I am in Content Mastery ... Special Education. The teachers sometimes ask us what we do. I just say "we show the students what they CAN do, we don't harp about their disabilities."

We scaffold, we build them up, we help them out. Whatever it takes. Some don't appreciate it and never will, but the ones who grow makes it all worth it.

[raen.livejournal.com]

I might be a bit right winged here (which is rare) but in my opinion.. if you don't like the rules when you walk in a building.. walk into a different building.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

That's not really an option in the case of schools. Many would choose to not walk into any of them, given the choice. And I'm hard pressed to find a good reason why we shouldn't let them.

[raen.livejournal.com]

I see your point, but I think I am looking at this in a different way.
If I were to hypothetically walk into a church, would it be appropriate to wear a t-shirt that clearly shows a satanic symbol? That would be disrespecting the establishment.. no?

I personally, do not see the difference between the satanic symbol in a church, and a picture of any weapon on a student's t-shirt on school property.

Do I believe that a child should be suspended? No. I do believe that he should have the choice to either find a sweater, turn the shirt inside out, or go home.