John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2008-03-11 03:23 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2008-03-11 03:23 pm
Entry tags:
It's a Gun.
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject