# ACLU Sues School Over Gay Pride Shirt Ban



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2004)

* ACLU Sues School Over Gay Pride Shirt Ban *





*Author: *Fox News   *Source: *Fox News 




*Title: *ACLU SUES SCHOOL OVER GAY PRIDE SHIRT BAN









The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday sued a southwest Missouri school district for prohibiting a high school student from wearing gay pride-themed T-shirts.

 The district has said the T-shirts were disruptive and therefore a violation of school dress code. The lawsuit filed in federal court also names Webb City High School Principal Stephen P. Gollhofer.

 "Because I'm gay, my school is trying to take away my constitutional right as an American to express myself," the student, Brad Mathewson, said in a statement.

 "The school lets other students wear anti-gay T-shirts, and I understand that they have a right to do that," he said. "I just want the same right." *Options:*   [*Read Full Story*]


 ======

* Teen Who Wore Gay-Themed T-Shirts To School Brings ACLU In Case *




*Author: *Steve Rock, Knight Ridder Newspapers   *Source: *Kentucky.com (KY) 




*Title: *TEEN WHO WORE GAY-THEMED T-SHIRTS TO SCHOOL BRINGS ACLU IN CASE









Whether the townsfolk know it or not, Webb City, in the southwest corner of Missouri, has become a battleground in the gay rights movement.

 The debate hasn't yet reached front-burner status at such places as the Bradbury Bishop Deli on the downtown square. Scores of locals know very little or nothing about it.

 But that could change. Soon.

 Twice in the last two weeks, Brad Mathewson, a junior at Webb City High School, was instructed by school officials to change T-shirts that bore gay rights themes. The first of the two incidents prompted Mathewson to contact the American Civil Liberties Union.

 Now the ACLU is actively involved. The organization has engaged a local lawyer, shipped out news releases en masse and met with school officials. 

 *Additional Article Link: *[Click HERE]


----------



## raedyn (Nov 25, 2004)

The school says his shirt is a distraction. It's a way bigger distraction now that the school went and made a big deal out of it!

Why wasn't his (straight) friend's "I love lesbians" shirt the same day considered 'distracting', and ordered removed?

To the credit of the school's administration, they also told the student wearing the "God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve" t-shirt stop wearing it to school -- but not until after the ACLU announced they were taking up the case.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 25, 2004)

The school is endorsing an anti-gay position, plain and simple.  They say that the shirt is the cause of the disruption, as opposed to the students who gave a hostile response to it.  If there weren't any such hostile responses, then what disruption is involved?


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 25, 2004)

I find this absolutly appaulling! I hope that they win this suit.  If the students were allowed to where anti-gay shirts, then this young man should be allowed to wear his Gay Pride shirt.  I personally don't like it when people wear that kind of stuff, but we cannot have a double standard.  I think the kids who were wearing these anit-gay shirt should had been punished.  Just my opinion, and my two cents.  

Great thread by the way, should spark many good posts.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## raedyn (Nov 25, 2004)

There wasn't a hostile response to the shirt, other than the school's. The boy wearing the shirt said one kid called him  f.a.g.g.o.t  as he left the school but "that's nothing unusual".

(hey I didn't know the software wouldn't let me type _that_ word. cool.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2004)

-Sidebar- 
We filter a number of terms that have been deemed offensive, and misused.  Circumvention of the filter as done here is allowable.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 25, 2004)

That whole thing is ridiculous.  I have heard/seen much worse on Tshirts worn by students even back in my high school days.  I find it interesting that he exchange d Tshirts with his friend and his friend didn't get into trouble.  Makes one wonder if he was being singled out.  I guess everyone has a different opinion on what is vulgar/obscene an in bad taste.  Kudos to this young man for having the strength and perseverence to stand up for what he believes to be right.  I hope he is victorious.


----------



## Oak Bo (Nov 25, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> That whole thing is ridiculous. I have heard/seen much worse on Tshirts worn by students even back in my high school days. I find it interesting that he exchange d Tshirts with his friend and his friend didn't get into trouble. Makes one wonder if he was being singled out. I guess everyone has a different opinion on what is vulgar/obscene an in bad taste. Kudos to this young man for having the strength and perseverence to stand up for what he believes to be right. I hope he is victorious.


 Yup agree with ya Nalia on that thought.
 I saw much worse then this, and nobody seemed offended by it.
 :idunno:


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 25, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> That whole thing is ridiculous. I have heard/seen much worse on Tshirts worn by students even back in my high school days. I find it interesting that he exchange d Tshirts with his friend and his friend didn't get into trouble. Makes one wonder if he was being singled out. I guess everyone has a different opinion on what is vulgar/obscene an in bad taste. Kudos to this young man for having the strength and perseverence to stand up for what he believes to be right. I hope he is victorious.


My guess is he was being singled out because he was openly gay.  The friend was straight I am assuming and agreed there was nothing wrong with the t-shirts so wore them.  I have found many times, that people who are against homosexuality can deal with someone who is not gay wearing t-shirts and supporting gay right easier than someone who is gay being open and up front about it.  IMHO what the school did was wrong.  It was one sided and sounds like the school needs to work on their levels of tolerance.  I have a lot of respect for the kid being open about who he is though.  Many adults can't bring themselves to do it let alone a teenager.  I am glad his mother is supporting him and letting him fight this battle which I think needs to be played out.  Hopefully he will win.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 27, 2004)

I think this'll be an interesting court case.  Supposedly the Bush re-election was due to the Gay marriage issue...just last year the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in thirteen states.  Where will this one go?

I saw Kinsey tonight with my wife.  I'll be interested in reaction to this movie, given its strong pro-homosexuality message.  In one scene a man is being interviewed by Kinsey (Liam Neesen) and he tells how his brothers caught him in a soiree with another lad.  They branded both the boys.  They were thirteen.

Not really related to this topic...but the issue of discrimination in this case called into mind what Kinsey hoped to do--release the world of its ignorance and bigotry.  

Great flick.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 27, 2004)

People should keep their sexuality to themselves, or at least off the backs of their shirts so the kid behind them can concentrate on what the teacher's writing on the chalkboard.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 27, 2004)

Yeah, for that matter they should keep their politics to themselves, and their religions.  Nobody needs to hear about those.  While we're at it, we should keep them from expressing any opinion in class; wouldn't want to break anyone's concentration, or concept of reality, you know?  

C'mon, man, this country's founded on free speech, and not censoring opinions just because they might upset someone.  That applies to the kids in the classroom just as much as it does to adults in any public forum ("Tinker v. Des Moines", 393 US 503, 1969.)  Besides, do we really want to blame the student wearing the shirt for the fact that another student couldn't handle seeing it?


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 27, 2004)

-I don't know, its one thing to have an opinion, another to openly promote hate is some way. School situations are a pain, since the students are supposed to be there primarily for learning. Should kids have the same rights to free speech, when in threatens others? What if a group of students at the school went after the gay student to assault him? They may have already had that hate and bigotry already, but what if a simple tee-shirt sets them off? Why take the chance? Just as its easier to destroy than to create, its easier to hate than to love.


A---)


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 27, 2004)

His free speech didn't threaten anybody, not even himself, and to say that it did, or to say that it's a disruption, is basically to endorse and permit the hateful response that did not, in fact, originate from the t-shirt, but from the other students.  

If the goal is to crack down on violence and prevent these kinds of things from occurring, I'd say punish the students who harrass or assault in response to something as unthreatening as a t-shirt, rather than the student who decides to wear the shirt, since the responsibility for the harrassment or assault truly lies with the former.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> People should keep their sexuality to themselves, or at least off the backs of their shirts so the kid behind them can concentrate on what the teacher's writing on the chalkboard.



I doubt its that much of a distraction, Mike.  It takes a second to read "Gay Pride."  The kid didn't have a tome printed in small print on the shirt.

If a kid wore a heterosexual pride t-shirt would you feel the same?

Straights set the tone for all the social functions in the school.  They set the theme for the dances and the proms.  Many schools ban same sex couples showing up at these events and having any public displays of affection--whereas straight couples are allowed to do so within certain parameters.   

So a kid decides to out himself and let it be known that he's gay and proud of it. Big whoop.   


Regards,


Steve


----------



## deadhand31 (Nov 27, 2004)

One thing I find funny, the ACLU didn't come in to aid this kid who wore a "Straight Pride" t-shirt (though the state supreme court said he could):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22891

I think if a kid can wear a "Gay Pride" shirt, then they should also let a kid wear a "Straight Pride" shirt. 

You see, I support the first amendment to the fullest extent. I think if there can be gay pride rallies, then there can be rallies for those who oppose homosexuality. I think if there can be an assembly for those who wish for racial equality, then there can be assemblies for those who are against it. 

Don't get me wrong, I believe anyone can do what they want, and I'm for racial equality. But one thing I think is great about America, ANYONE can say ANYTHING they want, even if I find it disagreeable. It's everyone's right as an American, and I say to hell with anyone who would restrict that right.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 28, 2004)

I would feel the same because I don't think it's appropriate to be worn in school. Just as you probably couldn't wear a shirt to work that reads "Mustache Rides - $.05". It used to be that you could make a statement or express yourself with what you wore without it having words written all over it.

School Uniforms anyone? Dress codes? Discipline? Eh, forget that one. It's Publick Skooltyme.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 28, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I would feel the same because I don't think it's appropriate to be worn in school. Just as you probably couldn't wear a shirt to work that reads "Mustache Rides - $.05". It used to be that you could make a statement or express yourself with what you wore without it having words written all over it.
> 
> School Uniforms anyone? Dress codes? Discipline? Eh, forget that one. It's Publick Skooltyme.




"Gay pride" is a political statement.  "Mustache rides" is vulgar.

I'm all for dress codes.  But in accordance with what you're saying you'd have to have one banning ALL political statements, which isn't going to happen.  Shall we ban "Support our troops" t-shirts?  How about the USMC t-shirt Uncle Dave brings us when he's on leave?  No logos or names from sports teams?  We could do as the Catholic schools do and require a plain shirt with a collar, but you'll quickly find students and parents up in arms over such a restriction.  Public schools in general aren't going to enforce this.

As for self-expression with what one wears, that too has been banned.  Kids across the country were banned from wearing black trenchcoats after Columbine.  Ducktail hairstyles were banned in the fifties.  Both were deemed to cause delinquency.

This is a distraction, Mike.  You know such restrictions as you advocate aren't going to take place on a universal scale, and you know they weren't applied in this instance.  

Let's get back to the point.  The issue is one of freedom for a Gay teenager.  A different standard of conduct has been applied to that teenager than has been applied to the rest of the student body.  This is heterosexism.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> -Sidebar-
> We filter a number of terms that have been deemed offensive, and misused. Circumvention of the filter as done here is allowable.


 Question on this:  Is this due to the context and use?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 28, 2004)

Usually.   It's a very simple dumb filter, in it just does character string matching.  We've found interesting results from where certain phrases are burried in legit words.  Some words are obvious, others aren't.  We try to cover the 'obvious' then deal with the others as we find them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I doubt its that much of a distraction, Mike.  It takes a second to read "Gay Pride."  The kid didn't have a tome printed in small print on the shirt.



I bet it was more of a distraction then you think.  Many of the people in question have been taught from birth to hate homosexuals...then to be suddenly faced with the demon in person...I'm sure the conditioned response was quite disruptive.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 28, 2004)

Some of us can be a bit distracted--and even more than a little insulted--by the smug t-shirts lots of fundamentalist Christian groups pass out, and by the militarist shirts we've seen on lots of occasions. If we can put up with that sort of nonsense, schoolkids can survive a "Gay Pride," message or two.


----------



## redfang (Nov 28, 2004)

If the school doesn't want expressive clothing, then they should adopt uniforms.  The city where I am, all the public school kids wear uniforms.  No kids getting shot or beat up for their name  brand shoes and clothes that way.  Also, someone said that a shirt which reads "Gay Pride" is a political statement and should be allowed.  I agree, but not everyone in this country would.  Many people believe that such a slogan is as lewd and offensive as any.  We live in a climate right now where restricting freedoms has become acceptable, either for "moral" reasons or "security".  We are swinging farther to the right than we have been for a while.  It is quite possible that the school is afraid to let parents think that it might be pro gay, or teaching their children "gay values".  Witch hunts loom right around the corner.


----------



## auxprix (Nov 28, 2004)

Well, it's such a slippery slope. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. On one hand, you can allow a shirt such as this (and you should, there is nothing vulgar about simply identifying one's self as a homosexual and people need to learn to accept that), but then the line always gets pushed by individuals, and the judgment call ultimately comes down from the administration.

On the other hand, you can come up with a strict school uniform dress code. The problem with this is that it is often a means of stomping out individuality, which is a principal our country is founded on. In a sense, I know that the school is getting what's coming to it, but I can't help but feel a little bad for the administration. My Godmother is a principal, so I hear all about the lightning rod issues. Dealing with this type of ordeal always results in them getting burned by one of the sides in conflict.

My best friend is gay. He didn't come out to anyone untill after graduation, because he was terrified. Now this is in one of the more liberal states in the union, so I can't imagine the terror closeted gay highschool students might feel in the bible belt. It shows that our education system still has a lot of growing to do as far as protecting their students go.


----------



## Deuce (Nov 29, 2004)

I personally don't have anything against homosexuality, but I don't understand some people's need to post a banner accross their chest to advertise it. Same goes with the "Straight Pride" shirts. I get the feeling that the main motivation of wearing these shirts aren't to express themselves, but to start controversy and get people riled up.

I don't feel the need to let strangers know my background or beliefs by wearing a "I'm a straight roman catholic french white Canadian" shirt. First of all, any stranger who sees it, ain't going to care. Anyone who knows me who's sees it, already knows I'm those things and proud of it, so what's the point.

If I see someone wearing a "gay pride" shirt, I don't care if they're gay, I just wonder why they feel the need to tell me. It seems as though they wear the shirt to challange the beliefs of the anti-gay people who see it. 

I'm all for freedom of expression and don't have a problem with any of these shirts, but like I said before, I think they're worn to push the bounderies and cause controversy. 

Back to the original topic, he should be allowed to wear his "gay pride" shirt if anti-gay shirts are allowed, I just don't understand why they want to.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 29, 2004)

When one is a member of a discriminated minority, one sometimes feels the need to draw attention to ones plight.

It seems that it is primarily in the regresive christian-influenced American mind that there is a problem with same-gender orientation.  While we bill ourselfs as the "Land of the Free", other nations such as Canada have leapfroged us and picked up the torch that we dropped in our hurry to "cross ourselfs" against the gay deamons, come to redecorate us and haircut us until all fabric of our enlightened society is obliterated.

I hope this kid wins, I hope he wins big and I hope the result bankrupts that school system. There is no place in our education system for intollerant behavior. Not against anyone!   You don't deny 1 while subtley encouraging the other.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 29, 2004)

Beyond the fact that this is a kid--and a trivial issue--one doesn't have anything against Protestant fundamentalists' beliefs, nor against some folks' hyperaggressive patriotism. 

One simply doesn't see the reason that the rest of us have to see, and read, their constant expressions of their fringe beliefs on t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 29, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> People should keep their sexuality to themselves


Okay, sure. Sounds fair. So straight people should stop kissing and holding hands in the street, and stop having weddings that the publicly celebrate, and stop having children together and stop calling each other 'husband' and 'wife' because those are all public declarations of one's sexuality, too.

Often people who think they're being all progressive and fair minded will say "oh I don't mind if you're gay just I don't want to hear about it, keep it to yourself". I don't think they think about what an unfair double standard that is. Straightness asserts itself in grand fashion all over the damn place. Why should gay people be subjected to that?

I don't mind if you're straight, either. Just keep it to yourself, okay?

Do you see how that's a ridiculous thing to say?



			
				Deuce said:
			
		

> If I see someone wearing a "gay pride" shirt, I don't care if they're gay, I just wonder why they feel the need to tell me. It seems as though they wear the shirt to challange the beliefs of the anti-gay people who see it.


You're probably right about that, Deuce. Lots of people think they've never met a gay person in real life. The vast majority of those people are wrong. You might be very surprised to learn some of the people you know that are gay. To find out that normal people you know and like are gay can really challenge the streotypes you have about what gay means. And it's a lot harder to demonize a group when you have a personal relationship with them. If you think you've never met a gay person and you have an idea in your head of what a gay person is like - this idea planted by gay-bashers and the fundamentalist christian right - then it's easier for you to get on board with the Let's Treat Gays Badly crowd. But if you knew yr favorite english teacher from high school was gay, and your buddy's mom is gay and that funny guy at work is gay, it's a lot harder to have all sorts of dreamt up ideas of what horrible creatures gay people are.


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 30, 2004)

that's one of the points of a gay-straight alliance, to increase awareness that homosexuality and discrimination touch every one of our lives in one way or another.  The alliance at my law school is probably 60% straight and 40% gay.  A lot of people have a very different reaction when someone who is straight opens a dialogue with them about homosexuality, instead of someone who is gay.  If the person in question has internalized a lot of anti-gay feelings, a straight person opening the dialogue to discuss it is a lot less threatening, in the same way that some white people were able to discuss the civil rights movement in the 60s with people who, in that era, might not have wanted to converse with a black person.

And as for the part about wanting to announce one's sexuality... nobody's ever gotten any kind of improvement in their situation by hiding.  Awareness is what starts to get people thinking about an issue.  I'd bet a lot of those kids in that school had never really thought about homosexuality, never knew they'd ever met a gay person, until they saw that kid's t-shirt.  That is the point.  Homosexuality has been around forever.  It's about time that people stopped pretending it doesn't exist.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Okay, sure. Sounds fair. So straight people should stop kissing and holding hands in the street, and stop having weddings that the publicly celebrate, and stop having children together and stop calling each other 'husband' and 'wife' because those are all public declarations of one's sexuality, too.



I believe the context was MINORS in SCHOOL.

Somepeople do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I believe the context was MINORS in SCHOOL.
> 
> Somepeople do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans.



Raedyn's response to your post (#11) was valid.  You said:

"People should keep their sexuality to themselves, or at least off the backs of their shirts so the kid behind them can concentrate on what the teacher's writing on the chalkboard."

She then responded by pointing out that public displays of sexual orientation and affection are common among people and that banning them would be silly. Your response was to attempt to set a double standard, as witnessed below.

You attempted to distract the conversation with your "mustache rides" t-shirt comment.  Nobody in this thread or in the ACLU is calling for the allowance of such a non-political and vulgar t-shirt.  However, you suggest Raedyn's response to your comment in post #11 was a distraction--which it wasn't.  You didn't write "children should keep their sexuality to themselves," you wrote "people should keep their sexuality to themselves."  She zinged you aptly and appropriately.  

You further distract the issue by saying "Somepeople (sic) do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans."

The discussion was not about sex education, but about 1st Amendment rights.  The t-shirt was not a sexual slogan, but a political one having to do with sexual orientation. Your "mustache rides" comment is suggestive of a sexual slogan.  The t-shirts found at T-shirthell.com are sexual slogans.  The "gay pride" shirt is not.

Deuce wrote:

"If I see someone wearing a "gay pride" shirt, I don't care if they're gay, I just wonder why they feel the need to tell me. It seems as though they wear the shirt to challange the beliefs of the anti-gay people who see it." 

You answered your own question in part.  The second half of your question is perhaps addressed here:

http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2004)

Wow.

 It never ceases to amaze me just how hung up some people are about sexuality and how ironic this is since not a one of us would be here without it.

 Okay, so - I never want to see any Ozzy shirts (I'm an animal rights activist) and I don't want to see any pro-Bush or pro-Kerry shirts because I'm with the Green Party and I don't want to see any Grateful Dead or Judas Priest stuff, either because they depict evil images.  I should not have to look at Pro-Life or Pro-choice propaganda, be exposed to any type of advertising, have to look at images or messages from Martin Luther King, the Pope, the Bible, the Quran, the Agnostic's handbook, Sharp Phil's magazine, Martial Talk, Hotmail, AOL, Newsweek, High Times, Rolling Stone, images of war on television, images of peace on television, see people wearing crosses or Stars of David around their necks, images of the KKK or Little Debi versus Betty Crocker.

 These images disturb me and disrupt my thinking patterns.  Why should I have to look at these things?

 You know - I have the solution, folks!  Let's all wear cargo pants with no pockets with brown belts, white button-down collared oxford shirts, loafers, wear the same hairstyles, drive the same cars, use the same fuel, wear no jewelry, ban all music, television, computer service, educational systems, periodicals and any and all symbolism whatsoever.  We would all attend the same church and espouse the same beliefs with no variants, brands, smells, tastes, etcetera.  All take-out food would be the same, healthy, tasteless and odor-free vitamin paste and be healthy for you.

 We will all walk the same, live in exactly the same houses with the same color paint, same number of rooms, same layout, same landscaping.  We'll all have the same hairstyle, and since some men are bald, all men will be bald, and since some women are balding, all women will be bald as well.  We will unlock the genetic codes to skin and eye color and will all be programmed in the test tube to look exactly the same, sound the same and be the same height.  We will eliminate all maladies, illnesses, ugliness, obesity, desires, dreams, hopes and values by genetic elimination.  We will have a uniform code of language - approved words and disapproved words.  And we will never die.

 Please.  If you don't want to read the T-shirt or think thoughts provoked by the message on it, monitor your own thoughts ... and eyes.  Are you in control of your faculties or not?  If not, better watch out, because I'm sure someone else will gladly volunteer to control your mind for you.

 :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 30, 2004)

Lots of interesting posts here.

The issue at hand was the fact that a "gay pride" shirt - which I would agree is not "sexual" but an identity/political shirt - was not allowed, but things like "I *heart* lesbians", worn by straight males, which is a sexual-content shirt, were allowed.  Clear double-standard.

If T-shirts of any nature are too much for a school system, they may implement a dress code - i.e. no T-shirts (which bear the vast majority of garment 'chatter'), but polo, button-down, etc shirts are OK.  After a change like that, however, you may still have kids with "gay pride" (or "save the whales", or "I hate everything") stickers on their books, backpacks, and so forth.

What makes me a bit sad about this particular case is that, compared to a lot of the stuff I've seen, "Gay Pride" is so simple, and so (to me) innocuous.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Raedyn's response to your post (#11) was valid.  You said:
> 
> "People should keep their sexuality to themselves, or at least off the backs of their shirts so the kid behind them can concentrate on what the teacher's writing on the chalkboard."
> 
> She then responded by pointing out that public displays of sexual orientation and affection are common among people and that banning them would be silly. *Your response was to attempt to set a double standard*, as witnessed below.



No it wasn't.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *You attempted to distract the conversation * with your "mustache rides" t-shirt comment.  Nobody in this thread or in the ACLU is calling for the allowance of such a non-political and vulgar t-shirt.



No I didn't. It was an example of yet another form of free speech that may not be allowed in certain environments.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> However, you suggest Raedyn's response to your comment in post #11 was a distraction--which it wasn't.  You didn't write "children should keep their sexuality to themselves," you wrote "people should keep their sexuality to themselves."  She zinged you aptly and appropriately.
> 
> You further distract the issue by saying "Somepeople (sic) do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans."
> 
> The discussion was not about sex education, but about 1st Amendment rights.  The t-shirt was not a sexual slogan, but a political one having to do with sexual orientation. Your "mustache rides" comment is suggestive of a sexual slogan.  The t-shirts found at T-shirthell.com are sexual slogans.  *The "gay pride" shirt is not*.



Yes it is. Political as well as sexual in nature. A double standard for the school to take action on one style vs. another, yes. But I've already made it clear there shouldn't be any such wording on students' clothes. That's just me. Well, and obviously one school board as well.

I'm curious, do you also like to see the teenage girls with words like "Juicy" written across their jean bottoms? Seems to be a new fad in the schools as well. I suppose the First Ammendment also guarantees that right as well but again, is it appropriate in the school setting? Obviously the parents don't mind.


----------



## deadhand31 (Nov 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm curious, do you also like to see the teenage girls with words like "Juicy" written across their jean bottoms? Seems to be a new fad in the schools as well. I suppose the First Ammendment also guarantees that right as well but again, is it appropriate in the school setting? Obviously the parents don't mind.



I really don't like the direction that young girls fashion is taking. I remember when after my neice started attending a public school, she said that her shorts weren't short enough because "they didn't show off her butt." She was 6 years old at the time. This is also from an area where the local k-mart was selling thongs with the term "Eye-candy" written on them sized for 5-8 year olds. I would draw the "sexual overtones" line WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY before any of those things.

If a person wants to wear something like straight pride, gay pride, bi-pride, asexual pride, etc.. that's fine. Saying that I'm proud to be straight doesn't put any sexual overtones to anything, unless I go into detail about my heterosexual activities. If a person really wants to be proud of who they are, fine. However, I tend to be rather apathetic when it comes to sexuality. If a person says "I'm gay!" My typical response would be "Oh." Personally, that's the kind of response I feel would be best within society.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm curious, do you also like to see the teenage girls with words like "Juicy" written across their jean bottoms? Seems to be a new fad in the schools as well. I suppose the First Ammendment also guarantees that right as well but again, is it appropriate in the school setting? Obviously the parents don't mind.




No.  I don't.  I don't approve of middle school (or for that matter high school) girls wearing bare midriff shirts and rolled down shorts. I cracked on one girl in my martial arts school for wearing a shirt that said "If you're cute, I'm single."  She's fourteen.  We have a dress code that reflects the standard of the local schools.  No obscenity, nothing sexually suggestive, nothing glorifying drugs or alcohol.  "Gay Pride" shirts are allowed.  We've never had to deal with that issue, but if it comes up, I know how we'll handle it.

And no, the First Amendment doesn't allow for that "juicy" shirt.  As to whether it allows for a "Gay Pride" shirt hasn't been yet established by the courts.  But it isn't sexually suggestive, Mike.  The kid didn't have "B**w me, I'm Gay" on it.  He had a shirt identifying him as a minority and proud of it.  Given that the sodomy laws of thirteen states were overturned by the Supremes last year and that Gay marriage has been one of the hot driving political topics in the last election, I think it safe to say this kid had a political agenda.

The shirt doesn't conjure up fantasies of a sexual nature nor was it intended to identify the kid for other Gay kids (they know who they are usually).  Now if it conjures up sexual images for YOU Mike, which it clearly seems to from all you've written, then I'm surprised.  This is simply faaabulous.

You're not holding back on us, are you?  You're not maybe a one or a two on that Kinsey scale, perhaps?

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2004)

While I can agree with the concept of banning shirts with sexual content, I cant back the school if they arent being equal with the rules enforcement. It applies to all the students or none of them IMHO.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 30, 2004)

There is more to being gay than the sex. A shirt that declares "I'm gay" is no more sexual than a shirt saying "I'm married". It's just not sexual.

Often people make the mistake of equating gayness only with the sexual aspect. I've discovered "sexual orientation" is a misnomer. For gay & straight people alike there is more to their 'orientation' than the sex. There are celibate gay people & celibate straight people but they don't stop being gay or straight just because they stop having sex.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2004)

Gay/Homosexuality is a sexual preference. It would be like wearing a shirt that said "Im heterosexual" more than "Im married". Personally, I dont think it should even be an issue. You like what you like and are free to do so. Issues that impact me/society like public benefits/marriage should be open for debate, but otherwise.....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Gay/Homosexuality is a sexual preference. It would be like wearing a shirt that said "Im heterosexual" more than "Im married". Personally, I dont think it should even be an issue. You like what you like and are free to do so. Issues that impact me/society like public benefits/marriage should be open for debate, but otherwise.....




What with you being straight, I don't see how Gay marriage would impact you...unless you're a preacher or a divorce attorney.  But that's another thread.  Maybe you could steer me to places where you've posted your thoughts on that.

The point of a person being celibate and gay is an interesting observation.  A person's sexual drive is independent of their orientation.  Some people have almost no sexual drive, but identify themselves as either gay, straight, or bisexual based upon their minimal libidos.  At the extreme they're considered asexual.

How about a shirt that says "Asexual and proud of it!"  Would that distract you in a classroom, Mike?  Or would your mind go blank?

Makes one wonder if asexuals fantasize about not having sex.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## deadhand31 (Nov 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Makes one wonder if asexuals fantasize about not having sex.




Perhaps one of their pick up lines is this:

"You know, I'm going to have to get you out of that skimpy tank-top and babydoll shorts... and into some baggy pants and a parka......."


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> No.  I don't.  I don't approve of middle school (or for that matter high school) girls wearing bare midriff shirts and rolled down shorts.



Well, there's a start. Ya sure now?   



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The shirt doesn't conjure up fantasies of a sexual nature nor was it intended to identify the kid for other Gay kids (they know who they are usually).  Now if it conjures up sexual images for YOU Mike, which it clearly seems to from all you've written, then I'm surprised.  This is simply faaabulous.



Eh, well, what can I expect. A couple vulgar attacks from one who defends the purity of underage homosexuality.

It's OK Steve. No one's mentioning sexual images/fantasies as being the distraction in the classroom. There's a lot of ways to look at this. Interesting which ones jumps into your mind.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 1, 2004)

I think the whole political issue is a distraction to teaching. I like dress codes. Not only rules out this stuff, but helps with the whole "competition" thing over clothes, shoes, jewelry etc. I remember in my school days the big deal over Nike shoes. If your parents couldnt buy the $100+ things you were a "geek".


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 1, 2004)

> A couple vulgar attacks from one who defends the purity of underage homosexuality.


 What does "underage homosexuality" mean?  I am lost on that one.  Are homosexuals only allowed to know they are homosexuals after age 18?


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 1, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now if it conjures up sexual images for YOU Mike, which it clearly seems to from all you've written, then I'm surprised. This is simply faaabulous.
> 
> You're not holding back on us, are you? You're not maybe a one or a two on that Kinsey scale, perhaps?
> 
> ...


Over the line, HHJH.  You never usually stoop that low or get personal when you post.:idunno: 

Two weeks ago, a friend of mine's son got smacked several times with a belt on a school bus because he was wearing a Christian-witness T-shirt that resembled a logo for a skateboard company.  (no, the family isn't suing or pressing charges)

I live in a small (pop. 12,500) town in the midwest. A kid with a gay-pride T-shirt in school would probably have gotten beat-up.  I am not condoning it; just stating the facts.  The school would expel or suspend those who assaulted the kid, but it wouldn't stop there. Eventually the gay kid's parents sue the school for not providing a safe educational environment, in spite of the fact that the kid is deliberately provoking the attacks by wearing the T-shirt. 

If the kid keeps wearing the shirt, knowing he is causing a disruption, I think the school has the right and the obligation to ask the kid not to wear the gay-pride t-shirt to school.  

I don't know how this is comparable to ethnic minorities.  YOu can't change the color of your skin (unless you're Michael Jackson, and then it just ghastly).  You can change your T-shirt.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> What does "underage homosexuality" mean?  I am lost on that one.  Are homosexuals only allowed to know they are homosexuals after age 18?



OK, underage homosexual "activity". (I was tired)

I guess if someone is of the mind homosexuality starts at birth that phrase could be a little misleading.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 1, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Over the line, HHJH.  You never usually stoop that low or get personal when you post.:idunno:




Maybe you're right, Melissa.  It was intended lightly and in jest...and was in response to a dig at me from Mike in another thread.

But your scolding, if deserved, is directed only at me.  Note Mike's suggestion that I might lust after underage girls. 

He also writes:

_Eh, well, what can I expect. A couple vulgar attacks from one who defends the purity of underage homosexuality.

It's OK Steve. No one's mentioning sexual images/fantasies as being the distraction in the classroom. There's a lot of ways to look at this. Interesting which ones jumps into your mind._

So he's suggesting, apparently, that I'm immoral for defending a teenager who is a homosexual.  He's also suggesting that I've prurient interests insofar as sexual images conjured by t-shirts.  This, inspite of the fact that he's described shirts saying "Mustache rides" and one saying "juicy."  I wasn't the one that brought it up.

So he's three for one.  But thanks for holding _me_ to a higher standard.  I'll try and do better.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 1, 2004)

OK folks, we were doing great here for awhile. Let's get back to the issue.

I have to say, regarding the comparison of the "gay pride" shirt to the "straight pride" shirt, yes of course allowing one while disallowing the other would by a hypocritical double standard, but, which one of these groups is fighting for equality? It seems to me that the person wearing a "gay pride" shirt is motivated to do such because of a desire to bring the fact of homosexuality into the mainstream. The more society is exposed to this stuff, the more widely it is tolerated. 

I'm skeptical as to whether or not the person wearing the "straight pride" shirt is promoting a positive message in the same way. We know that straight people aren't fighting for equality, so what's the motivator? Why the need for the reciprocity? It seems to me that the goal is to provide themselves "equal voice" in declarative fashion, so as to not allow the "gay pride" movement to make any progress.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Back to the original topic, he should be allowed to wear his "gay pride" shirt if anti-gay shirts are allowed, I just don't understand why they want to.



I think that wearing a Gay Pride t-shirt is the equivolent of a homosexual refusing to sit in the back of the bus.  This group of people is actively discriminated against and the only way people are going to realize it is if homosexuality is suddenly visible.  The t-shirt may say _Gay Pride_ but what it really means is _Gay Power_.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Somepeople do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans.



Mike, Gay Pride does not imply sex.  This is not a sexual issue.  Its an issue about who _you are allowed _ to *love * and you are not.  Love is the real issue, not sex.  And, in my opinion, the last thing we want to do in this world is discourage people from loving one another.

In most high schools, homosexual relationships are _forbidden _ and never seen, but in high schools where people have overcome old outdated societal mores, these relationships resemble most other heterosexual relationships.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, Gay Pride does not imply sex.  This is not a sexual issue.  Its an issue about who _you are allowed _ to *love * and you are not.  Love is the real issue, not sex.  And, in my opinion, the last thing we want to do in this world is discourage people from loving one another.
> 
> In most high schools, homosexual relationships are _forbidden _ and never seen, but in high schools where people have overcome old outdated societal mores, these relationships resemble most other heterosexual relationships.



I think it implies sex as it is a sexual orientation (controversial). It also implies their idea of the new marriage idea (controversial) and their idea of a family unit (controversial). This is easily a distraction. On the flip side, it is also a topic which I would have no problem being discussed in the schools if they could do it properly. Maybe in a Social Studies class, psych...?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think it implies sex as it is a sexual orientation (controversial). It also implies their idea of the new marriage idea (controversial) and their idea of a family unit (controversial). This is easily a distraction. On the flip side, it is also a topic which I would have no problem being discussed in the schools if they could do it properly. Maybe in a Social Studies class, psych...?



Mike, if this is a _sexual _ issue about _sexual_ orientation, then two parapelegic homosexuals cannot have this relationship.  On the other hand, these two individuals may _love _ each other.  They may even love each other and never have _sex_.  See what I'm saying?

I do agree, these controversial issues need to be aired out in our high schools.  For the sake of the kids who live with this repression, getting this issue out may save lives!  The highest sueicide rate among high school populations is among homosexual students.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 1, 2004)

Oh, Kyo Sa Nim, you have made the point that we have been trying to get to so simply with your words above!  HUZZAAAHHH!!

 Perhaps what we need to do as a society is one of two things:

 1.  Start calling every person who is involved in an opposing-gendered relationship Heterosexuals - all the time - or,

 2.  Stop using the work "homosexual" except in a clinical sense and find another term for the members of the populus who enter same-gendered relationships.

 I am all in favor of the latter for several reasons.

 Here's some more of my .02:

 I am a heterosexual woman.  If the biggest part of me that anyone paid attention to was the fact that I prefer sexual relations with a man, that would break my heart, because it is a tiny, tiny, tiny part (well, maybe not that tiny ) of who I am.  I am a mother.  I am a daughter.  I am a sister.  I am a martial artist.  I am a lay student of medicine.  I am a girl scout leader, a student, an assistant instructor, a voter and a consumer.  I am a person with a heart, a mind and a soul.  I have friends I have thoroughly pissed off and annoyed because of some of my lack of social instruction and lingering issues just because they were of the opinion that I'm a good person with a good heart and good intentions and that was good enough for them. 

 The gay populus is not comprised of a "bunch o' homosexuals," but a group of citizens just like you and me.  And they want our noses out of their bedrooms just as much as many people want their butts out of them too.  The real problem is, many of us just can't seem to help ourselves.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that wearing a Gay Pride t-shirt is the equivolent of a homosexual refusing to sit in the back of the bus. This group of people is actively discriminated against and the only way people are going to realize it is if homosexuality is suddenly visible. The t-shirt may say _Gay Pride_ but what it really means is _Gay Power_.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


That's a very good perspective. I guess I was a bit narrow minded in my previous post about the reason for wearing the "gay pride" shirts. As I mentioned before, seeing someone wear "gay pride" accross their chest has absolutely no impact on me at all. I think this is the case with many people who aren't discriminatory towards homosexuals. 

The shirts will have impact and stir up emotions mostly with the non-tolerant groups. I can see how the constant controversy may lead to a more tolerent society in the long run due to the increased exposure and debate.

As far as the allowance of "sexual orientation" shirts in schools, I'm still on the fence. On the one hand, school is about learning and education. School staff have enough to worry about without having to deal with kids being beat up or harassed because of a T-shirt. I'm all for freedom of expression, but something needs to be done if it's causing disruptions or problems at school. Whether it's a dress code or harsher punishments for discriminatory behavior.

But then again, where do you draw the line? Ban "gay pride" shirts, and the homosexuals will complain about pro-satan heavy metal band shirts in retaliation. Then all of a sudden, everyone is being "disrupted" or "distracted" by another's attire because they're upset the can't express themselves they way they want to. Touchy subject.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 1, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> The school says his shirt is a distraction. It's a way bigger distraction now that the school went and made a big deal out of it!
> 
> Why wasn't his (straight) friend's "I love lesbians" shirt the same day considered 'distracting', and ordered removed?
> 
> To the credit of the school's administration, they also told the student wearing the "God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve" t-shirt stop wearing it to school -- but not until after the ACLU announced they were taking up the case.


Dress code issues are so unfairly enforced it isn't even funny.  This is just a hot button topic.  I have seen fully covered girls that still were 'revealing' in their attire selection.  Unless you are going to go to school uniforms or uniformity guidelines, this is going to keep coming up.

Now, I can agree that ANY clothing that causes a disruption should be put on the NOT list for school dress codes.  I bet if you look at the specifics of the policy it spends much more time on female attire issues (shirt length, neckline, skirts, shoes....) than it does on t-shirts.

The wording is generally so vague that there is room for interp.  I am guessing, but I would say that this is a 'stance on me asserting my individuality as a homosexual in the face of bullying/prejudice' issue NOT really about the t-shirt itself.  I say a similar or the same case on a PBS show and the student talked about a general apathy from the administration when he reported past bullying issues based on his sexual preference/prejudice.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 1, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Eventually the gay kid's parents sue the school for not providing a safe educational environment, in spite of the fact that the kid is deliberately provoking the attacks by wearing the T-shirt.


 So he wore a gay pride t-shirt and thus *deserved* a beating, right?  Lord knows those abominal homosexuals are really just provoking all right-minded people to thrash them.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> I don't know how this is comparable to ethnic minorities. YOu can't change the color of your skin (unless you're Michael Jackson, and then it just ghastly). You can change your T-shirt.


 You can't change your sexual orientation either, despite mooncalf beliefs otherwise.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 1, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I am a heterosexual woman. If the biggest part of me that anyone paid attention to was the fact that I prefer sexual relations with a man, that would break my heart, because it is a tiny, tiny, tiny part (well, maybe not that tiny ) of who I am. I am a mother. I am a daughter. I am a sister. I am a martial artist. I am a lay student of medicine. I am a girl scout leader, a student, an assistant instructor, a voter and a consumer. I am a person with a heart, a mind and a soul.


Huzzah to Shesulsa! Well put, hon. Sexuality is but one aspect of a PERSON. We sometimes forget how much we have in common.



			
				Deuce said:
			
		

> As far as the allowance of "sexual orientation" shirts in schools, I'm still on the fence. On the one hand, school is about learning and education.


 Yes. And it's learning & educational to discover that there are gay people all around you. People that you know, and like, and respect. It's educational to learn that when you slam "gays" you are slamming PEOPLE - your peers, your friends.



			
				Deuce said:
			
		

> School staff have enough to worry about without having to deal with kids being beat up or harassed because of a T-shirt.


 This kid wasn't getting harassed because of the T-shirt. He said the T-shirt got almost no reaction from the other students. He did get insulted as he left the school but said "that's nothing new". Which means he was subjected to that treatment even without the T-shirt. So the problem isn't the T-shirt, it's the disruptive and abusive actions of the other students. Why is THAT tolerated?



			
				Deuce said:
			
		

> harsher punishments for discriminatory behavior.


 This would seem the logical outcome. The discriminatory behaviour existed and thrived previous to the T-shirt in question. And it creates a hostile & poisonous environment for those people that are gay. There are many negative consequences to this. Something to consider: _Why_ do you suppose the suicide rate is significantly higher amongst gay teens vs. their peers?



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> You can't change your sexual orientation either, despite mooncalf beliefs otherwise.


 And yet, there are people that insist you can 'choose' to 'change' your orientation. While I believe that anyone can choose to abstain, the notion that you can change your orientation is ridiculous. To heterosexuals who claim that I say this: Could you suddenly decide to reform your ways and become gay? Could you just 'switch'? Not hardly! Well the same goes for gay/lesbian people.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 1, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Over the line, HHJH. You never usually stoop that low or get personal when you post.:idunno:
> 
> Two weeks ago, a friend of mine's son got smacked several times with a belt on a school bus because he was wearing a Christian-witness T-shirt that resembled a logo for a skateboard company. (no, the family isn't suing or pressing charges)
> 
> ...


I think the basic idea is that you shouldn't have to change your shirt to avoid getting beat up - if others have homophobia or hate issues, they are the ones who have the problem, not a kid wearing a t-shirt that isn't blatantly rude - like a religious shirt, or a gay pride shirt.

Admitting that the lynch mob should have the right of way in this debate is two steps back, I think.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> OK, underage homosexual "activity". (I was tired)
> 
> I guess if someone is of the mind homosexuality starts at birth that phrase could be a little misleading.


Of the gay and bisexual people I'm met, most figure out during childhood that they are "different", although they also learn to not talk about it at all.

And having "gay pride" doesn't mean this kid is engaging in sexual activity, it's part of his identity.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Of the gay and bisexual people I'm met, most figure out during childhood that they are "different", although they also learn to not talk about it at all.
> 
> And having "gay pride" doesn't mean this kid is engaging in sexual activity, it's part of his identity.


To bring up a point in defense of the administration though, would it be acceptable for hetero students to be wearing tshirts that promote heterosexual pride?  Not in a school IMO.  

Firstly, it is an academic/citizen building environment where underage students are being taught (hopefully) about cooperation, diversity respect and other issues specifically because they don't automatically have those skills/understandings in place.

If the school is going to be proactive or take a positive direction with this issue, it should take the bullies to task that are being inappropriate.  It should enforce the dress code that makes ANY sexually specific clothing/wording clearly unacceptable in school and it should definitely be encouraging, educating and rewarding character actions and development:  I don't care if it is race, creed, religion or sexual preference - hostility and bullying are not acceptable.  Nor is any clothing that is going to detract from academic pursuits:  whether it is the short tops/skirts for girls or novelty tshirts of any inappropriate nature for all students.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 1, 2004)

Paul what you said make a lot of sense and if I can add a little I'd appreciate your tolerance.

 First of all, I think the T-shirt reading "Gay Pride" is a political, not sexual, statement and attempts to forward the interests of equality.  That said, perhaps all public displays of political preference or interest or whatever on the part of anyone enrolled in a public educational facility should be banned.  I dunno exactly how comfortable I am with this, but ... it's a possibility, I suppose.

 Second of all, I agree that the people who should be subject to disciplinary action in this instance is the bullies.  Saying that wearing the t-shirt was asking for trouble is like saying a woman wearing no panties and flirting in a bar is asking to get raped - it's nonsense (I'm not saying you said this, I'm just making a relavant point to segue to the next sentence).  So if the t-shirt message ban were to be enacted, this teen should not be subject to any disciplinary action, but be warned to not wear the shirt in the future.

 Third, my concern is how we impart the knowledge of peaceful demonstration and protest if we squash opinions held by our youth?  How do we find a way for them to express their ideas and explore their feelings about topics and examine their values in an educational, peer-based setting without allowing the freedom we are inclinced to deny them based on the irresponsible behavior of a few?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> To bring up a point in defense of the administration though, would it be acceptable for hetero students to be wearing tshirts that promote heterosexual pride? Not in a school IMO.
> 
> Firstly, it is an academic/citizen building environment where underage students are being taught (hopefully) about cooperation, diversity respect and other issues specifically because they don't automatically have those skills/understandings in place.
> 
> If the school is going to be proactive or take a positive direction with this issue, it should take the bullies to task that are being inappropriate. It should enforce the dress code that makes ANY sexually specific clothing/wording clearly unacceptable in school and it should definitely be encouraging, educating and rewarding character actions and development: I don't care if it is race, creed, religion or sexual preference - hostility and bullying are not acceptable. Nor is any clothing that is going to detract from academic pursuits: whether it is the short tops/skirts for girls or novelty tshirts of any inappropriate nature for all students.


This is a fine point - I would just then expect the school to go after the other t-shirts that were not addressed and worn by heterosexual students.


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think the basic idea is that you shouldn't have to change your shirt to avoid getting beat up - if others have homophobia or hate issues, they are the ones who have the problem, not a kid wearing a t-shirt that isn't blatantly rude - like a religious shirt, or a gay pride shirt.
> 
> Admitting that the lynch mob should have the right of way in this debate is two steps back, I think.


YOU are absolutely right.
No one should be beaten up because of a t-shirt.

My friends resolved their son's issue by making the kid who beat him tutor their son in math for their next several months.  While he is in the home, they have contemporary Christian music playing and they will sit down as a family and pray when this boy is at their home.

The lynch "mob" should be tracked, hunted down, and punished, individually.

Would you agree that it is  OK for a Muslim American to walk thru the halls  of a predominantly Jewish High School wearing a t-shirt that says Muslim Pride?

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 1, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> So he's three for one. But thanks for holding _me_ to a higher standard. I'll try and do better.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


You're welcome.
When I read posts, I always consider the source. 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 1, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> YOU are absolutely right.
> No one should be beaten up because of a t-shirt.
> 
> My friends resolved their son's issue by making the kid who beat him tutor their son in math for their next several months. While he is in the home, they have contemporary Christian music playing and they will sit down as a family and pray when this boy is at their home.
> ...


  I sure would!  The predominantly Jewish students would have to, and should be able to, deal with it, just as any other religious, ethnic, or political group would have to.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 1, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Would you agree that it is  OK for a Muslim American to walk thru the halls  of a predominantly Jewish High School wearing a t-shirt that says Muslim Pride?




I would.  Even if he wore a shirt that said, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet."  

He'd probably have it a little easier at a largely Jewish school than in a largely Protestant school in Selma, Alabama.

I'll have to get a shirt like that and go south sometime.  Nah.  With my knee, I wouldn't be able to get away from the mob.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 2, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> To bring up a point in defense of the administration though, would it be acceptable for hetero students to be wearing tshirts that promote heterosexual pride?  Not in a school IMO.
> 
> Firstly, it is an academic/citizen building environment where underage students are being taught (hopefully) about cooperation, diversity respect and other issues specifically because they don't automatically have those skills/understandings in place.
> 
> If the school is going to be proactive or take a positive direction with this issue, it should take the bullies to task that are being inappropriate.  It should enforce the dress code that makes ANY sexually specific clothing/wording clearly unacceptable in school and it should definitely be encouraging, educating and rewarding character actions and development:  I don't care if it is race, creed, religion or sexual preference - hostility and bullying are not acceptable.  Nor is any clothing that is going to detract from academic pursuits:  whether it is the short tops/skirts for girls or novelty tshirts of any inappropriate nature for all students.



Just curious, have you read any Alfie Kohn?  He suggests that the traditional response to _deviant _ behavior is to make everyone do and act the same.  He also says that this only results in different types of devient behavior which is what I'm getting from your post.  

I feel, and agree with Mr. Kohn, that teaching children that being different is okay and _expected _ in school might be a better way to instill tolerance in our students...eventually eliminating the above behaviors through acceptance.  Unfortuneately, a large problem with this is that the schools are only one small step.  Society itself would need a large overhaul...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 2, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I sure would!  The predominantly Jewish students would have to, and should be able to, deal with it, just as any other religious, ethnic, or political group would have to.



Just "dealing with it" might be harder then you think.  A jewish student from Isreal who watched someone he or she loved die in a sueicide bombing might really have a hard time dealing this this.  They may view it as a _slap in the face_.

Which is how I think many people _view _ a gay pride shirt.  If you have been taught from the cradle that homosexuality is wrong, then suddenly finding acceptance is probably not going to happen.  I'm not sure how to be sensative to this and still push for a society that is equal for everyone.

Yet, I think that somehow recognizing this difficulty is a first step toward actually accomplishing the above.  I know that just telling a person to "deal with it" brings on a defensiveness that makes learning impossible.

upnorthkyosa

PS - Many of you have used the above phrase "just deal with it" and I don't mean to be putting words in anyones mouths by injecting a meaning that wasn't there.  Yet, I believe that liberals, in general, have gone wrong by not recognizing the above.


----------



## Satt (Dec 2, 2004)

Do you think school uniforms are a good thing or bad thing? (anyone) And why?


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 2, 2004)

Satt said:
			
		

> Do you think school uniforms are a good thing or bad thing? (anyone) And why?


I see nothing wrong with them.  Make them reasonable to all can afford them.  Try and put people on an equal plane.  Hopefully avoid situations were gang violence erupts cause of certain colors or clothes worn, avoid offence from T-shirts and create a level playing field for those that can't afford the expensive clothing.  As far as I am concerned school is a place to learn.  A place should exist where kids are allowed to completely express themselves, and there should be a place where they get other point of views besides the one's mom and dad have been hammering in.  I am not sure exactly where that should be, but I don't think it should be during math class.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 2, 2004)

I think school uniforms have their pros and cons. As mentioned before, uniforms would decrease the social status differences involing money and expensive attire. Children whose parents are strapped for cash and can't afford brand name jeans or shoes, will not feel as left out because they won't have to wear their "out-dated" hand-me-downs. Obviously the uniforms would also eliminate such dress codes issues as to what is appropriate in a school setting. Beatings or threats for shoes or jackets in school would also be eliminated.

I went to a small school in south Saskatchewan, which had a strong farming and ranching influence. You could tell who lived on a farm or ranched just by observing what people were wearing. The kids who ranched were proud of it, and they dressed the part with Wranglers, cowboy boots, etc.. I lived in town and always wore heavy metal t-shirts, thick chain on my wallet, long goatee, etc.. I looked like a punk that was up to no good. I was smart and always got fairly high marks. When I first moved to this town, my English teacher assumed I was a dumb**s because of the way I looked, so she gave me crapy marks based on my appearance and not my ability. When she saw my other marks, she told my mother that she felt silly for the low marks because she didn't realize how smart I was. After that, my English marks magically improved.

My point is, the way you dress in school is an expression of yourself, and can give people an idea of what you're like or who you are. Unfortunately, these assumptions can often be a misconception of the truth. 

Uniforms would solve a lot of issues, but would eliminate one's development of individuality and expression.


----------

