NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont think so. On the simple grounds that it is a school, and the school reserves the right to have rules that govern the behaviour and dress of the pupils. But what do you think and why?

I think that, if it is a public school, it has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion, provided that it does no harm to others.

No. Islam is not a race. There are limits to freedom of religion. There's a native American religion, recognized by the federal government, that uses peyote in it's rituals. They're allowed to do that, but would probably be prohibited from doing so in schools.

Depends on the law and the constitution of where it happens...

In the states, it would be anti-constitutionnal to make a rule targetting specifically the muslim dress, as you have this little thing called ffreedom of religion.

If all headgear is prohibited, a ban on head scarves is not inherently bigotted (unless the prohbition was aimed at Muslim students).

However, any such rule demonstrates a clear lack of education about, or disregard for orthodox Muslim girls. Asking an orthodox Muslim girl to go in public without her head scarf is no different than asking a Morman girl to walk around topless. It is a matter of what the individual considers modest -and their own wish to not feel exposed.

I dont think so. On the simple grounds that it is a school, and the school reserves the right to have rules that govern the behaviour and dress of the pupils. But what do you think and why?

I don't think it is a race issue, but it is a clear violation of the free exercise of religion and whatever public school would do such a thing should be ordered to cease and desist immidiately.

No. Islam is not a race. There are limits to freedom of religion. There's a native American religion, recognized by the federal government, that uses peyote in it's rituals. They're allowed to do that, but would probably be prohibited from doing so in schools.
race1 Audio pronunciation of "race" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
.

They fall under 4 for sure ... if not 2(arguable)

If all headgear is prohibited, a ban on head scarves is not inherently bigotted (unless the prohbition was aimed at Muslim students).

However, any such rule demonstrates a clear lack of education about, or disregard for orthodox Muslim girls. Asking an orthodox Muslim girl to go in public without her head scarf is no different than asking a Morman girl to walk around topless. It is a matter of what the individual considers modest -and their own wish to not feel exposed.
I'm fully in favor of topless mormon girls. Let's pass that law.

If all headgear is prohibited, a ban on head scarves is not inherently bigotted (unless the prohbition was aimed at Muslim students).

However, any such rule demonstrates a clear lack of education about, or disregard for orthodox Muslim girls. Asking an orthodox Muslim girl to go in public without her head scarf is no different than asking a Morman girl to walk around topless. It is a matter of what the individual considers modest -and their own wish to not feel exposed.
While I agree if it is a private school I believe they have a right

Public school I do not think has the right (and that includes letting kids wear hats and what not)

Though I do hold out on obsenity or anything extremly distracting to other class mates

I'm fully in favor of topless mormon girls. Let's pass that law.
I would vote for this law you speek of

Depends. If the school bans all such religious expressions I'd consider them stupid but nontheless consistent. If it only targets the Islamic customs it is definitely bigoted though.

I think it would only be fair if everyone had a standard uniform. Why even allow personal variation of any kind if you're going to ban headscarves?

Let the community come up with a standard uniform. If you let each school's parents vote on the uniform standard, you might end up with headscarves at some schools, not at others, and a mix at other schools. But you might standardize the majority of the uniform.

Ooh. Conformity. What am I saying?!

race1 Audio pronunciation of "race" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
.

They fall under 4 for sure ... if not 2(arguable)
4, yeah. We all do.

2, not so much. I could, if I suddenly went insane, convert to islam. I wouldn't share history, nationality, or geographic distribution with most muslims. I would be one by virtue of my beleif. Indonesian muslims and saudi muslims don't share history, nationality, or geographic distribution. Are you going to argue that because of that they are not both muslims?

I just had a second thought about this to my first opinion, which I never posted.

Yes. of course it is racist. Why bother outlawing it in the first place? sure it might not simply target Muslims, but on the matter concerning modesty, I agree. Why make covering yourself up illegal? it makes no sense whatsoever, and regardless of any rationale you apply, disproportionately targets Muslims. Whether or not Muslims are a race is irrelevent. It's discriminatory for no good reason, and that's bad enough.

I don't consider it racist, per se, but I believe there's a word for someone who forces a child to do things that child considers inappropriate or immodest ...

Now what was that word again .........

I don't consider it racist, per se, but I believe there's a word for someone who forces a child to do things that child considers inappropriate or immodest ...

Now what was that word again .........

What do you call compulsory public education to age 18...

Mind control...

While I agree if it is a private school I believe they have a right

Public school I do not think has the right (and that includes letting kids wear hats and what not)

Though I do hold out on obsenity or anything extremly distracting to other class mates
Private schools has no such right if it is illegal. If it is deemed discrimination based on something protected (like religion in the states) they are still breaking the law even if they're a private school.

Is it then okay for me to wear a T-shirt saying "You wear your X, I'll wear mine"?? (Where the X in question is the Confederate Stars & Bars...)

I just had a second thought about this to my first opinion, which I never posted.

Yes. of course it is racist. Why bother outlawing it in the first place? sure it might not simply target Muslims, but on the matter concerning modesty, I agree. Why make covering yourself up illegal? it makes no sense whatsoever, and regardless of any rationale you apply, disproportionately targets Muslims. Whether or not Muslims are a race is irrelevent. It's discriminatory for no good reason, and that's bad enough.
I agree by that token we should also alow hats and other wear that has traditionaly been banned in school no reason muslems should have special treatment (I love wearing hats ... while I am out of highschool I would have loved to have the option)

Private schools has no such right if it is illegal. If it is deemed discrimination based on something protected (like religion in the states) they are still breaking the law even if they're a private school.

Private intitutions are always allowed to discriminate, so long as they receive no government funds.

Private schools has no such right if it is illegal. If it is deemed discrimination based on something protected (like religion in the states) they are still breaking the law even if they're a private school.
I am talking about school uniform in general sorry (and that means SAME standard for everyone) should have made that more clear

Is it then okay for me to wear a T-shirt saying "You wear your X, I'll wear mine"?? (Where the X in question is the Confederate Stars & Bars...)

Frankly, I don't care - and I did see many people at my high school wearing that exact same shirt.

Of course, I also won't feel bad for you when you catch flack for it.

Is it then okay for me to wear a T-shirt saying "You wear your X, I'll wear mine"?? (Where the X in question is the Confederate Stars & Bars...)

Meh ... suit yourself. Though remember that freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.

If all headgear is prohibited, a ban on head scarves is not inherently bigotted (unless the prohbition was aimed at Muslim students).

However, any such rule demonstrates a clear lack of education about, or disregard for orthodox Muslim girls. Asking an orthodox Muslim girl to go in public without her head scarf is no different than asking a Morman girl to walk around topless. It is a matter of what the individual considers modest -and their own wish to not feel exposed.

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

The real surge toward donning hijab came with Iran's revolution. Women were seen as key elements in achieving changes in public morality and private behavior. Unveiled women were mocked, called unchaste "painted dolls," and were punished if they appeared in public without proper covering. In countries beyond Iran in the 1970s, demonstrations and sit-ins appeared over opposition to the required western style dress code for university students and civil servants.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20030819.shtml



That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.

This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite community.

In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the National Gallery in London, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.)

Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shiite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.

Sadr's neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah's regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands.

In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane" (sic). To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.

I just had a second thought about this to my first opinion, which I never posted.

Yes. of course it is racist. Why bother outlawing it in the first place? sure it might not simply target Muslims, but on the matter concerning modesty, I agree. Why make covering yourself up illegal? it makes no sense whatsoever, and regardless of any rationale you apply, disproportionately targets Muslims. Whether or not Muslims are a race is irrelevent. It's discriminatory for no good reason, and that's bad enough.
Covering your face when speaking to someone else (a teacher for example) is considered impolite in some cultures.

Hiding your face leads to some recognition problems to the point of an older sister taking the test for the younger sister. It has happened in France.

It might offend some kids who were not raised in a tolerant environment and leads to violence and discrimination among the kids.

You see, some reasons exists. Are they worth infringing on religious rights? It's a judgment call.

damm it

i mant no

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20030819.shtml
Intresting stuff! learn something new every day

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20030819.shtml

This really has nothing at all to do with a woman who chooses to wear a head scarf because she feels it to be more comfortable and modest.

Private intitutions are always allowed to discriminate, so long as they receive no government funds.
depends on where you live...

4, yeah. We all do.


A people "Considered a group". If you were to take me, a random American, Armienian, Russian and a South African in a room randomly we could not all identify with one group I expect.

Covering your face when speaking to someone else (a teacher for example) is considered impolite in some cultures.

Hiding your face leads to some recognition problems to the point of an older sister taking the test for the younger sister. It has happened in France.

It might offend some kids who were not raised in a tolerant environment and leads to violence and discrimination among the kids.

You see, some reasons exists. Are they worth infringing on religious rights? It's a judgment call.

There is a rather large difference between a burqua and a head scarf. In the former case, I could see that the need for a schoolteacher to be able to recognize her students may prevail. In the latter, if the teacher can't recognize the students without seeing their hair, the teacher should be fired for not paying any attention at all to the students.

Also the headscarf is properly named khimar although that was referring to headscarves in general, I believe.

I think any sort of school uniform is a crime against the human race.
If they took school uniforms in use here in Finland, there'll be a lot of unused black leather-jackets in closets. How do you think you'll be able to express yourself if not via your clothing.
The matter would be different though if everyone was compelled to wear black leather-jackets at school...

A people "Considered a group". If you were to take me, a random American, Armienian, Russian and a South African in a room randomly we could not all identify with one group I expect.

Sure you could: Human Beings.

A people "Considered a group". If you were to take me, a random American, Armienian, Russian and a South African in a room randomly we could not all identify with one group I expect.
I assumed it meant all humans considered as one group.

This really has nothing at all to do with a woman who chooses to wear a head scarf because she feels it to be more comfortable and modest.
It's not fully religious-based though.

There is a rather large difference between a burqua and a head scarf. In the former case, I could see that the need for a schoolteacher to be able to recognize her students may prevail. In the latter, if the teacher can't recognize the students without seeing their hair, the teacher should be fired for not paying any attention at all to the students.
I'm with you.

I just posted three reasons why you might want to put that rule because the poster I quoted didn't think there was reasons. While this one is weaker, it was still debated and, as such, I felt it warranted to be included.

Intresting stuff! learn something new every day
You didn't already know that the Iranian mullahs were crazy?

You didn't already know that the Iranian mullahs were crazy?
No the specifics about traditional dress and history (too much of a comp geek I guess)

This really has nothing at all to do with a woman who chooses to wear a head scarf because she feels it to be more comfortable and modest.
I feel more comfortable with my hat on ... in highschool I was not allowed to wear it

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20030819.shtml

The Qur'an states that women who are travelling abroad or who are among non-Muslims or who are not among their family should cover their hair. I can assure you that if you're a Muslim girl in a US public school, then you're around non-Muslims.

Since I'm sure you'll ask for confirmation of this: Surah al Nur 31

Meh ... suit yourself. Though remember that freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.

And remember that you do not have the right to not be offended. :)

My question stands: If you voted yes to the question and no to my supposition, then you've got a problem. You're willing to grant one group a right you're not willing to grant another.

I'm with you.

I just posted three reasons why you might want to put that rule because the poster I quoted didn't think there was reasons. While this one is weaker, it was still debated and, as such, I felt it warranted to be included.

Oh, I'm aware of the arguments, I just didn't think they were good enough for me to warrant as reasons, so I didn't include them as part of my own argument. Admittedly, I'd never heard of the situation where an older sister sat the test, but I still think it would be a rare enough occurence to influence a decision one way or the other.
Whilst I don't think it was your intent, my opinion remains unchanged. I still find it discriminatory, and the arguments against it weak.

It's not fully religious-based though.

Neither is the fact that a Mormon girl wouldn't want to go out topless. My contention has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with banning an article of clothing that some people feel is necessary to be modest.

This really has nothing at all to do with a woman who chooses to wear a head scarf because she feels it to be more comfortable and modest.

Forgive me, but school is not about being comfortable. I am sure if you ask school childern they will tell you there are lots of rules they are uncomfortable with (For example, their is building work going on at my school at the moment. As a result my route to one faculty is cut off. Now I could go the short way, out just before the blocked corridor, around to the main entrance and through. But the school has arbitarly prohibited us from going that way for no explained reason)

I feel more comfortable with my hat on ... in highschool I was not allowed to wear it

I doubt that you would feel immodest without it.

However, I would argue that there was no reason (unless the hat itself was huge and obstructing the view of other students or something like that) that you shouldn't have been allowed to wear it.

And remember that you do not have the right to not be offended. :)

My question stands: If you voted yes to the question and no to my supposition, then you've got a problem. You're willing to grant one group a right you're not willing to grant another.

Well, to be fair, I doubt your t-shirt in question has any basis in religion.

Well, to be fair, I doubt your t-shirt in question has any basis in religion.

What if the school banned all forms of headwear. That is not specificly targeting Muslims. Would you consider that raceist.

And what defines the need to compromise for a group? Belief in God?

I doubt that you would feel immodest without it.

However, I would argue that there was no reason (unless the hat itself was huge and obstructing the view of other students or something like that) that you shouldn't have been allowed to wear it.
I agree ... (usualy jsut a skull or metalica or some other band baseball cap) and I agree as long as its not obsene or distracting its alright (though still feel like private schools DO have the right to have school uniforms... not public though)

Forgive me, but school is not about being comfortable.

Neo, the minute that you voluntarily go to a school that requires you to go naked, you can make this statement in reply to mine. Otherwise, you have no case.

Well, to be fair, I doubt your t-shirt in question has any basis in religion.

(Note: I'm assuming we're talking about America and not France here.)

Doesn't really matter, does it? It's still a First Amendment issue.

Neo, the minute that you voluntarily go to a school that requires you to go naked, you can make this statement in reply to mine. Otherwise, you have no case.

You miss the point. School is not about being comfortable. If you dont like it, leave the school. You have to deal with rules.

What if the school banned all forms of headwear. That is not specificly targeting Muslims. Would you consider that raceist.

It would certainly be misguided.

It would certainly be misguided.

Why? By that logic it is misguided to have any kind of uniform at all.

You miss the point. School is not about being comfortable. If you dont like it, leave the school. You have to deal with rules.
But if its a public school you may have no choice BUT to go to that school

You miss the point. School is not about being comfortable. If you dont like it, leave the school.

Notice that you focus on one word in a post which referred to being *modest*. If you believe it is alright for a public school to force a Muslim girl to be immodest, you must feel that it is alright for a public school to force anyone to be immodest. As such, they could require nudity in the school.

You miss the point. School is not about being comfortable. If you dont like it, leave the school. You have to deal with rules.

Perhaps not, but why should legislation designed to make it less comfortable be passed? There is no rhyme nor reason to that.

Why? By that logic it is misguided to have any kind of uniform at all.

It is very misguided to make a uniform that causes the students to do something they feel is immodest. If, for instance, a school uniform required assless pants, or the top was nothing but nipple-covering stickers, would you not consider it misguided?

If all headgear is prohibited, a ban on head scarves is not inherently bigotted (unless the prohbition was aimed at Muslim students).

However, any such rule demonstrates a clear lack of education about, or disregard for orthodox Muslim girls. Asking an orthodox Muslim girl to go in public without her head scarf is no different than asking a Morman girl to walk around topless. It is a matter of what the individual considers modest -and their own wish to not feel exposed.
Exactly...and even if the girl wanted to, her family still may not approve...to use your analogy...your Mormon daughter wants to go topless, but you don't think it's a good idea. The feelings of the student AND parents (or caregivers) need to be taken into consideration as well. Forcing orthodox Muslims to wear 'western' uniforms is like forcing girls to wear makeup or boys to get piercings...this might not bother some students or parents, but it would certainly upset others.

What if the school banned all forms of headwear. That is not specificly targeting Muslims. Would you consider that raceist.

And what defines the need to compromise for a group? Belief in God?

Well, schools tend to ban most forms of jewelry as well, but make comprimises when it comes to cross necklaces. With a ban on headwear, why not make a comprimise on hajib or kufi (men's head covering)?

But if its a public school you may have no choice BUT to go to that school

I'm assuming this is strange quirk of the American system. In Britian 98% of parents get their first school choice and all parents can pull out of the school if they wish and go somewhere else (there is lots of red tape to get through, but it can be done).

I don't consider it racist, per se, but I believe there's a word for someone who forces a child to do things that child considers inappropriate or immodest ...

Now what was that word again .........
Exploitative. Yeah, I agree.

I agree by that token we should also alow hats and other wear that has traditionaly been banned in school no reason muslems should have special treatment (I love wearing hats ... while I am out of highschool I would have loved to have the option)
I think we're talking about discrimination based on religion here (not race), and therefore, you wearing your hat wouldn't factor in unless you wore it for religious reasons. Recognised religion....

I think the idea of banning them is bad, and thus being against a school dress code stupid, simply because some of those muslim women are damned good looking in them.. or at least some of the ones at my university.

Not to offend anyone who might find that idea offensive, it's my opnion.

A school can actaully do whatever the hell it wants as long as the school board agrees.... though thats not to say that they wont lose if someone challenges it in the courts...

I'm assuming this is strange quirk of the American system. In Britian 98% of parents get their first school choice and all parents can pull out of the school if they wish and go somewhere else (there is lots of red tape to get through, but it can be done).
They can but it a lot of America one of our QUIRKS is having large land area … they are allowed to switch school if they can drive their kid 20 -30 miles (if they have the ability such as a car) or more to the next school

We are not all nice and packed in here in some places the next school is sometimes a good distance (someplace like Wyoming it cam be like 100 miles to the next town)

It is not legally restrictive rather then physically so

(Note: I'm assuming we're talking about America and not France here.)

Doesn't really matter, does it? It's still a First Amendment issue.

I'd agree, 100%, if high school kids were afforded 1st Amendment rights. Kids are bound by school policy. The Constitution doesn't apply to them yet.

Anyway, 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Your t-shirt is not a religious article, not speech, not press, not assembly, and not a petition of the government (well, not one of a government that still exists) ....

In Texas, we have in our Constitution a "Freedom of Expression" amendment, but there isn't one in the US Constitution. I do remember hearing about a couple of Supreme Court cases concerning the same matter and I'm sure someone will kindly point them out to me.

I figure you have the right to wear your shirt if you want. I may be offended by it, but it's your shirt and your body. I can always look away.

I think we're talking about discrimination based on religion here (not race), and therefore, you wearing your hat wouldn't factor in unless you wore it for religious reasons. Recognised religion....
oh so I have to be a member of a recognized group in order to have my "modesty" defined?

oh so I have to be a member of a recognized group in order to have my "modesty" defined?

I would say no ... but, ultimately, that's up to your school board. Things change. When I was in high school, boys could not have hair long enough to touch their shoulders. Now I see schools all over the place that allow long hair on boys as long as it's clean and groomed.

*snip*
I get your point...you are trying to show that the hajib does not have its foundation in religion, but rather tradition. Nonetheless, many religious practices are not original to the early teachings of that religion. Take the issue of makeup, for example. In some Christian traditions, wearing makeup is considered sinful, in others it is not. It is a question of morality that does not have a solid basis in scripture...not enough anyway to make it an across the board Christian value. Those traditional values need to be respected as well, as long as they do not harm anyone or break certain laws (like the law against bigamy and so on).

I would say no ... but, ultimately, that's up to your school board. Things change. When I was in high school, boys could not have hair long enough to touch their shoulders. Now I see schools all over the place that allow long hair on boys as long as it's clean and groomed.
Yeah I understand and I know that allowing everyone to do what they feel is impractical to say the least but … yeah I don’t know where I was going with that.

I imagine that whether it's racism or not it'll assuredly be touted as such by terror cell recruiters. After watching last night's "Frontline" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/), I'm fairly convinced that the west's poorer minorities are only going to be increasingly targetted by terrorist recruiters in the future, as they've yeilded such successful results in the past. I'm wondering if there are policies that will cut down on european and american, immigrant, alienated muslims who convert to militarism--without increasing the number of immigrating muslims alienated in these countries.

EDIT: to make this a little more on-topic, hasn't -France- enacted a series of policies which are easily viewed as anti-muslim?

EDIT EDIT: Holy crap! I guess I should ask first if I'm remembering right in that this is an action French government has taken...Actually, just nevermind: Watch Public Television. Es bueno.

Covering your face when speaking to someone else (a teacher for example) is considered impolite in some cultures.

Hiding your face leads to some recognition problems to the point of an older sister taking the test for the younger sister. It has happened in France.

It might offend some kids who were not raised in a tolerant environment and leads to violence and discrimination among the kids.

You see, some reasons exists. Are they worth infringing on religious rights? It's a judgment call.
We can try to make kids assimilate and be the same, but it won't work. We come from different backgrounds, and that affects how we interact in public. For example, raised as a Cree, I was taught not to meet the eye of an elder who was speaking to you...it's rude! It's like saying, "I'm just as good as you, so piss off". All through school (because I lived off reservation), my brothers and I got into trouble for not making eye contact with our teachers when they spoke to us. We were called, 'disrespectful' and 'insolent' and FORCED physcially at times to look them in the face. It was horrible! Most teachers in Canada are aware of this issue with their native students now, so it doesn't happen as much, but there are still many cultures teachers remain ignorant about. Forcing someone to strip off their traditional dress can be demeaning and humiliating. (Then again, for some, it may be liberating).

I think any sort of school uniform is a crime against the human race.
If they took school uniforms in use here in Finland, there'll be a lot of unused black leather-jackets in closets. How do you think you'll be able to express yourself if not via your clothing.
The matter would be different though if everyone was compelled to wear black leather-jackets at school...
I used to rail against uniforms as a student to0....we managed to keep them out of our schools. However, now as a parent, and a teacher, I support them (terrible of me, I know, but let me explain). I am a firm lefty, and I am very much against the consumer culture that is being pushed down our throats to the exclusion of all else. I am against ads adorning school walls, I am against ads on the school buses, I am against pop machines and logos in schools period...and that means on clothes too. Kids are walking advertisements, and they aren't even getting paid for it! It is especially hard on poorer families, whose children just MUST have brand name clothes...the stigma attached to out-of-style clothes is very real, and can really hurt a person's self-esteem. In extreme cases, you have clothes proclaiming your allegiance to a gang. In less extreme cases, you enfore the class system by visually defining the haves from the have-nots.

Now, on the flip side, I've seen the uniform in action, and kids still find a way to be cheeky and individual...hair styles, jewlery, wearing the uniform a little bit wrong (tie over shoulder etc). Kids still proclaim their individuality...but less of the focus remains on dress. If the school atmosphere is one of conformity, the uniform will be an extension of that. If the school atmosphere is less stifling, the uniform will not undermine that.

I'd agree, 100%, if high school kids were afforded 1st Amendment rights. Kids are bound by school policy. The Constitution doesn't apply to them yet.

Anyway, 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Your t-shirt is not a religious article, not speech, not press, not assembly, and not a petition of the government (well, not one of a government that still exists) ....

In Texas, we have in our Constitution a "Freedom of Expression" amendment, but there isn't one in the US Constitution. I do remember hearing about a couple of Supreme Court cases concerning the same matter and I'm sure someone will kindly point them out to me.

I figure you have the right to wear your shirt if you want. I may be offended by it, but it's your shirt and your body. I can always look away.

Right. And the debate was if they should or should not be allowed to wear headscarves. Both the scarves and the t-shirt are articles of clothing.

You're getting off track: my point is not specifically the t-shirt. How about a button supporting the guys who bomb abortion clinics?
The point I'm making is that if you allow one, you should allow the other.

PS: The T-shirt is most certainly freedom of the press. (Yes, that's a horrible pun, but it is also true... or is holding a piece of paper saying "Bush = murderer" also not a First Amendment issue? :D

You miss the point. School is not about being comfortable. If you dont like it, leave the school. You have to deal with rules.
As a teacher, I disagree. No, school is not about fuzzy chairs and slippers...you're talking about a different type of comfort when you talk about renovations. A school is not meant to be (anymore, though this hasn't always been the case, re: Residential Schools) a place where children feel unsafe. In loco parentis...it means in the place of a parent, and it is the first duty of a teacher...to act in place of the parent while that child is in your care. That boils down to acting in their best interests. That does NOT include humiliating them, making them feel uncomfortable and humiliated, or forcing them to look you in the eye if that goes against EVERYTHING they've been taught. That means respecting their background, and nurturing their potential...not forcing them to assimilate to your subjective ideas of 'normal' and giving them the 'option' of dropping out or moving schools because you, the ADULT, are too pig-headed to handle diversity.

(...) Forcing someone to strip off their traditional dress can be demeaning and humiliating. (Then again, for some, it may be liberating).
It becomes a culural clash, then. The student feeling naked without a headscarf and the teacher feeling insulted with a headscarf. Who gets to decide which is right?

Surely, for the good of all the class, the teacher cannot be in a constant state of emotionnal uproar. If one of the student causes the whole class to learn at a slower pace because of a garment, surely it is justifiable to ask that one student if they can remove it. It's for the common good of all the class.

(I feel obliged to mention that I am speaking in theory as I don't remember that American or Canadian culture is offended when someone talking to them is covering their mouth with a scarf)

Many school dress has that basic principle: it helps the whole class learn better by avoiding distractions such as baseball caps, headscarf, offensive t-shirts, obscenely short pants (like we needed those to lust after the pretty girls/boys).

"Is declaring Muslim dress contary to school uniform raceist?"

Not at all, but in all fairness to those who, as part of their religious faith's particularities, they should be allowed to wear what their faith dictates. This is called "freedom of religion." :)

I used to rail against uniforms as a student to0....we managed to keep them out of our schools. However, now as a parent, and a teacher, I support them (terrible of me, I know, but let me explain). I am a firm lefty, and I am very much against the consumer culture that is being pushed down our throats to the exclusion of all else. I am against ads adorning school walls, I am against ads on the school buses, I am against pop machines and logos in schools period...and that means on clothes too. Kids are walking advertisements, and they aren't even getting paid for it! It is especially hard on poorer families, whose children just MUST have brand name clothes...the stigma attached to out-of-style clothes is very real, and can really hurt a person's self-esteem. In extreme cases, you have clothes proclaiming your allegiance to a gang. In less extreme cases, you enfore the class system by visually defining the haves from the have-nots.

Now, on the flip side, I've seen the uniform in action, and kids still find a way to be cheeky and individual...hair styles, jewlery, wearing the uniform a little bit wrong (tie over shoulder etc). Kids still proclaim their individuality...but less of the focus remains on dress. If the school atmosphere is one of conformity, the uniform will be an extension of that. If the school atmosphere is less stifling, the uniform will not undermine that.
I know that is being somewhat contradictory...supporting freedom, but not supporting freedom of dress....yet supporting freedom of religious dress (despite being an atheist)...yeah, I recognise this. It's murky. For me, I want my kids to be free of the influence of rapacious advertisers while they're in school...I support parents who censor their children's t.v shows, movies and video games...(not to a crazy extent, but in terms of saying, "get outside and play, you're growing mold!"). I support freedom of religious dress as long as it doesn't interfere too much with the uniform (girls should be able to choose between skirts and pants in a uniform, and a veil or head covering on boys or girls shouldn't be a big issue....if there is a legitimate reason besides fashion for it). Argghhh...slippery....

oh so I have to be a member of a recognized group in order to have my "modesty" defined?
Certain standards need to be in place....children raised in a nudist colony may feel uncomfortable in clothes, but the other students would be MUCH MORE UNCOMFORTABLE if they weren't.:) If you wear a hat because your hair is greasy and unkempt, and you would be uncomfortable with it off, that is a different issue...the teacher should be looking into whether you have been neglected. If you wear a hat because you are going through chemotherapy, and you feel terrible because of your baldness, then by all means, you should get to wear the hat...as long as it doesn't sport an offensive logo. There can be no absolutes...exceptions must be made depending on the situation and the student. That is equity: fairness....not equality: sameness. Schools in the west have moved from equality to equity as an underlying philosophy. That may change, though I hope it doesn't, but then again....charter schools don't have to follow the rules of public schools...if you really want to be extreme one way or the other, and enough people agree with you, start a school. Otherwise, we need to respect the diversity of our population.

It becomes a culural clash, then. The student feeling naked without a headscarf and the teacher feeling insulted with a headscarf. Who gets to decide which is right?

If the teacher can't deal with diversity, the teacher should not be in charge of students in a diverse atmosphere.

Schools in the west have moved from equality to equity as an underlying philosophy.

Not in the US. Most of the schools have gone to these "zero tolerance" policies that leave no room for evaluating individual situations. What they actually lead to is good, honest students getting punished/expelled from school for making honest mistakes.

Example:

Many schools have a "zero tolerance" weapons policy. If a weapon is found in your possession on school grounds, you are expelled - period. Sounds good, right?

So, a straight-A, extremely involved Eagle Scout with no prior discipline problems goes on a hiking trip over the weekend. They are out late, so he doesn't have time to unpack his trunk. He forgets that, inside the trunk, is a hatchet used to gather firewood. He goes to school on Monday and it just so happens that Monday is a "lock-down" day in which police officers do a random search. Although the student has not showed or carried the hatchet, it is discovered in a random search. This student is immediately expelled from school.

It becomes a culural clash, then. The student feeling naked without a headscarf and the teacher feeling insulted with a headscarf. Who gets to decide which is right?
The student. Schools are not about teachers, they are about students. Being offended by a head scarf, and being offended by a logo that says, "Kill your teacher" are different things.

Surely, for the good of all the class, the teacher cannot be in a constant state of emotionnal uproar. If one of the student causes the whole class to learn at a slower pace because of a garment, surely it is justifiable to ask that one student if they can remove it. It's for the common good of all the class.
I'll need an example of how an article of clothing would slow down the class before I can fully respond to this.

As a Canadian, you are not doubt aware that most schools are now run on an 'integration' model, which means even special needs students are now in the regular classrooms. That could mean students in wheelchairs, students with severe learning disabilties or behavioural problems. Teachers have to make special lessons (in my district called Individual Program Plans) for EACH child who is special needs, and funding is supposed to be made available for teacher aides and so on. These kids aren't allowed to slow down the entire class, anymore than gifted children are allowed to 'speed it up'. However, their individual needs ARE taken into consideration. Just as children of Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs are...they are not forced to participate in certain celebrations, just as children with parents who don't want them to learn about human sexuality aren't FORCED to attend those classes. We adapt our curriculum for each student, and we've been doing it for years. It's difficult at times, but it is certainly doable.

(I feel obliged to mention that I am speaking in theory as I don't remember that American or Canadian culture is offended when someone talking to them is covering their mouth with a scarf)

Many school dress has that basic principle: it helps the whole class learn better by avoiding distractions such as baseball caps, headscarf, offensive t-shirts, obscenely short pants (like we needed those to lust after the pretty girls/boys).
I agree with this....and wearing silverly flashy headscarves just because you've been allowed to cover your head shouldn't be allowed to continue either. However, FORCING someone to dress in a way that is to them immodest, is akin to asking all school girls to wear bikinis to class.

Not in the US. Most of the schools have gone to these "zero tolerance" policies that leave no room for evaluating individual situations. What they actually lead to is good, honest students getting punished/expelled from school for making honest mistakes.

Example:

Many schools have a "zero tolerance" weapons policy. If a weapon is found in your possession on school grounds, you are expelled - period. Sounds good, right?

So, a straight-A, extremely involved Eagle Scout with no prior discipline problems goes on a hiking trip over the weekend. They are out late, so he doesn't have time to unpack his trunk. He forgets that, inside the trunk, is a hatchet used to gather firewood. He goes to school on Monday and it just so happens that Monday is a "lock-down" day in which police officers do a random search. Although the student has not showed or carried the hatchet, it is discovered in a random search. This student is immediately expelled from school.
This is a bit different problem, though a related one...the same thing is happening in Canada in certain areas. However, this is an issue related to discipline, and has it's base in the overreaction of community members and school boards alike. HOWEVER, these schools STILL have to provide a CURRICULUM that meets the needs of all students, regardless of their abilities. There is still room to manouver, and this hysteria will one day subside. The base may be shifting, but the idea of education as a process that needs to INCLUDE, not EXCLUDE remains.

If the teacher can't deal with diversity, the teacher should not be in charge of students in a diverse atmosphere.

Not a valid point. It is the teachers call.

-- Edit --
I forgot to mention if there was a school policy about dress. That guides this choice. No policy, then the girl is right. If there is a policy, then the scarve will go. France created a policy.....
---------

When the French ruling went down I asked one our our Muslims, who asked his Iman. He was told that if there are problems, the girls should remove their scarves. The scarf is nothing more then a symbol. It does not make her more of a Muslim.

This is a bit different problem, though a related one...the same thing is happening in Canada in certain areas. However, this is an issue related to discipline, and has it's base in the overreaction of community members and school boards alike. HOWEVER, these schools STILL have to provide a CURRICULUM that meets the needs of all students, regardless of their abilities. There is still room to manouver, and this hysteria will one day subside. The base may be shifting, but the idea of education as a process that needs to INCLUDE, not EXCLUDE remains.

Even in the area of curriculum, the US schools are going in the opposite direction. They expect to find a single curriculum that will make *all* students learn exactly the same material, in exactly the same way. The very idea is ludicrous, but Bush seems to think it will somehow result in better schools.

So, a straight-A, extremely involved Eagle Scout with no prior discipline problems goes on a hiking trip over the weekend. They are out late, so he doesn't have time to unpack his trunk. He forgets that, inside the trunk, is a hatchet used to gather firewood. He goes to school on Monday and it just so happens that Monday is a "lock-down" day in which police officers do a random search. Although the student has not showed or carried the hatchet, it is discovered in a random search. This student is immediately expelled from school.

Wow as an Eagle Scout, that seems a bit of a stretch. ;)

I am trying to envision what trunk you are talking about and why it would be taken to school......

Not a valid point. It is the teachers call.

So the teacher should be able to ask all students to wear assless pants? Good idea.

When the French ruling went down I asked one our our Muslims, who asked his Iman. He was told that if there are problems, the girls should remove their scarves. The scarf is nothing more then a symbol. It does not make her more of a Muslim.

Note that I didn't say it did. However, some Muslims would believe that it does. You do realize that not all members of any given religion believe exactly the same thing?

Meanwhile, my point is that you are asking someone to do something which they feel to be immodest. Again, would you support a law requiring all students to wear assless pants and go around topless?

Wow as an Eagle Scout, that seems a bit of a stretch. ;)

I am trying to envision what trunk you are talking about and why it would be taken to school......

The trunk of a car - the big compartment in the back.

Meanwhile, it isn't a stretch at all - it occurred a couple of years ago in Savannah, GA. I didn't change a single detail.

Not a valid point. It is the teachers call.

When the French ruling went down I asked one our our Muslims, who asked his Iman. He was told that if there are problems, the girls should remove their scarves. The scarf is nothing more then a symbol. It does not make her more of a Muslim.
Of course it doesn't. Nor do subdued clothes and a clean face make a girl more of a Christian. Nonetheless, if the girl has to remove her scarf, and she feels shamed and immodest, that is just as bad as forcing the Christian girl to wear a mini skirt and pancake makeup.

Also, it ISN'T the teacher's call. The teacher does not dictate school board policy...they have it handed down to them, and they have to follow it or lose their job. That can be double-edged...even if you support the right of muslims to wear traditional dress, and your school boards says they DON'T have that right, you have to enforce that ruling. It sucks, but that's our job.

Edit: I read your edit, but I think my answer already covered it.

Even in the area of curriculum, the US schools are going in the opposite direction. They expect to find a single curriculum that will make *all* students learn exactly the same material, in exactly the same way. The very idea is ludicrous, but Bush seems to think it will somehow result in better schools.
Yeah, well, education is often goverened by 'fads'. Bush indeed could do this and standardize all education and teaching methods. It would be sad. I only hope enough people fight against that and take an active interest in their child's education.

I won't be applying for a teaching position in the U.S any time soon though.

I don't think it's a problem. In fact, if some children are going to be subjucted to prejudicial treatment because they are wearing an overt symbol of religion, it's probably a good idea to declare Muslim (or any other overt religious dress) contrary to the school uniform.

So the teacher should be able to ask all students to wear assless pants? Good idea.



Note that I didn't say it did. However, some Muslims would believe that it does. You do realize that not all members of any given religion believe exactly the same thing?

Meanwhile, my point is that you are asking someone to do something which they feel to be immodest. Again, would you support a law requiring all students to wear assless pants and go around topless?

You beat me to my edit. I should have mentioned the school policy.

As to the assless pants arguement? :rolleyes: You can do better then that.

I know full well there are many branchs. However, your Religious viewpoints don't override everybody elses. If that was the case, then the murder of Theo Van Gogh was justified.

Finally, people that are extreame in their Religious views tend to send their children to a Religious institution. One of our workers is that way. His kid wears a scarf, she attends a Religious school.

The trunk of a car - the big compartment in the back.

Meanwhile, it isn't a stretch at all - it occurred a couple of years ago in Savannah, GA. I didn't change a single detail.

Doh!

Sorry I did a few terms as the quartermaster so when you said trunk, I was thinking of the a box! ;)

As to the assless pants arguement? :rolleyes: You can do better then that.

Why? Asking me to wear assless pants is no different than asking an orthodox Muslim girl to remove her headscarf.

I know full well there are many branchs. However, your Religious viewpoints don't override everybody elses.

Explain how anybody's personal decision which does no harm to anyone around them, nor does it force anyone to agree, could be considered "overriding everybody elses"? If I force you to do something (such as remove a head scarf), I am forcing *my* view on you. If I do not force anything on anyone else (such as wearing a head scarf myself), I have not overrided your own views that it is silly.

Finally, people that are extreame in their Religious views tend to send their children to a Religious institution. One of our workers is that way. His kid wears a scarf, she attends a Religious school.

So you believe we should relegate these kids to certain places - wall them off - make sure the rest of society doesn't see them, eh?

Of course it doesn't. Nor do subdued clothes and a clean face make a girl more of a Christian. Nonetheless, if the girl has to remove her scarf, and she feels shamed and immodest, that is just as bad as forcing the Christian girl to wear a mini skirt and pancake makeup.

Also, it ISN'T the teacher's call. The teacher does not dictate school board policy...they have it handed down to them, and they have to follow it or lose their job. That can be double-edged...even if you support the right of muslims to wear traditional dress, and your school boards says they DON'T have that right, you have to enforce that ruling. It sucks, but that's our job.

Edit: I read your edit, but I think my answer already covered it.

Yea. I was editing when you and Demp replied. Usually the policy is to deal with hard core situations. There is a rule in place to deal with a possible fight.

Luckily, I live in a state where it isn't much of an issue. I have seen scarved Muslim girls heading into a local public school. One of my wifes friends was telling about a teacher who got a new student and she taught the class a little about the Religion and why they do that. Fewer problems resulted.

It's funny. Relgion is supposed to make you a better person, but it does seem to cause many fights.

You beat me to my edit. I should have mentioned the school policy.

As to the assless pants arguement? :rolleyes: You can do better then that.

I know full well there are many branchs. However, your Religious viewpoints don't override everybody elses. If that was the case, then the murder of Theo Van Gogh was justified.
Neither do your secular views override other's religious views. (Listen to me arguing for religion...I'm a freakin' atheist!) There should be room for compromise...really, what does a gold cross or a skullcap or a scarf do to hurt anyone? People are equating muslim dress with hatred...but that is narrowminded....now a swastika, regardless of its early, innocent beginnings is associated with hatred, and shouldn't be allowed. A scarf, if it makes the wearer feel more comfortable, (emotionally, not physically) shouldn't be a problem.
Finally, people that are extreame in their Religious views tend to send their children to a Religious institution. One of our workers is that way. His kid wears a scarf, she attends a Religious school.Not all muslims who wear scarves are extremists. Nor are Christians who wear crosses. Yes, there are religious schools...but they may not have them in your area, or you may not be THAT religious. I think this boils down to less of a religious issue per se than one of tradition and comfort.

The only problem I have is that conceptually, everyone has the right to wear the religious paraphernalia of their choice (within reasonable limits of propriety, I suppose).

And, such clothing or symbols shouldn't arouse fear and suspicion in others.

So, let's say that I was a Klansman, and I was sending my son to school for Show and Tell in his little Junior Klan suit, complete with white hood.

Technically, it could be argued that it is a costume of religious expression (however vile and unreasonable others might see it).

So, to some who view Muslims with suspicion in the aftermath of 911, some might see a woman in a traditional headscarf as representative of something dreaded.

Now, I don't equate Klansmen with Muslims, but out there in the wide world, there must be those who do.

Whose feelings do we sacrifice on the altar of "make everything fair"?

You know what? I think little Johnny should be able to wear that Junior Klansman Suit, and the Muslims should be able to wear their headscarves. It's not for me or anyone else to say, "well, that religious expression is invalid or offensive, or outright silly"

So, put on that purple jumpsuit, and your running shoes, and pass me that barbituate-laced pudding...

As well, I haven't really heard a good argument against traditional dress that doesn't involve 'resistance is futile, you will be assimilated'. How does tradtional dress in any way interfere with another student's education?

Whose feelings do we sacrifice on the altar of "make everything fair"?

The person trying to restrict the rights of another always loses.

As well, I haven't really heard a good argument against traditional dress that doesn't involve 'resistance is futile, you will be assimilated'. How does tradtional dress in any way interfere with another student's education?

It only interferes with education if a) it restricts vision, hearing, or speech, b) it conceals the actual identity of the student in a way that makes the student impossible to identify for purposes of grading, or c) it's a coveted article of clothing that some children will find well worth stealing, or d) it's a symbol of a hated group that will invite animosity from other children.

Kids have been killed over Starter jackets. I can't remember the last time a girl was killed over a headscarf.

You know what? I think little Johnny should be able to wear that Junior Klansman Suit, and the Muslims should be able to wear their headscarves. It's not for me or anyone else to say, "well, that religious expression is invalid or offensive, or outright silly"

So, put on that purple jumpsuit, and your running shoes, and pass me that barbituate-laced pudding...
One fundamental problem with your argument: Klansmen are a racist organisation with no exceptions. There aren't black clansmen or clansmen that marry non-whites. Muslims are found in every nation, are of every colour and ethnicity, and the exception are the extremists.

No. Islam is not a race. There are limits to freedom of religion.

But do you agree with those limits?

We had a recent decision (fought for by the often demonized ACLU, though the demonizers tend to omit this case when they rattle their sabres) where a school blocked a girl from putting a religous quote in her entry in the yearbook. The ACLU argued and won that the school could not prohibit that. Freedom of religon does protect the individuals right to be as pius(sp) as they want. They shouldn't be allowed to restrict headscarves anymore than they should be able to restric yamakas(sp) or crosses.

I am not religous, and often irratated by religous people. However-they have every right in the world to believe the way they want and if that involves wearing headscarves then so be it. Any slippery slope argument, aside from being a fallacy, is pretty ridiculous. It's not as if they invented the scarf rule yesterday to get around a headgear rule at school.

One fundamental problem with your argument: Klansmen are a racist organisation with no exceptions. There aren't black clansmen or clansmen that marry non-whites. Muslims are found in every nation, are of every colour and ethnicity, and the exception are the extremists.

Racism within a private organization, especially a religious one, is not against the law.

Technically, you could label the Amish as being racist, even though that isn't on their agenda.

Klansmen could easily claim religious protection as an organization - and some extremist churches have sprung up in the US. Are you going to deny them their white hoods in class (as long as they are quietly paying attention in class), or are you going to punish them for behavior that they "might" engage in?

I say protect everyone equally, or make everyone wear a blue jumpsuit with a little dorky baseball cap - no exceptions.

Why? Asking me to wear assless pants is no different than asking an orthodox Muslim girl to remove her headscarf.
Considering the age of the girl and the laws against such stuff. Assless pants would never happen. Try another approach.


Explain how anybody's personal decision which does no harm to anyone around them, nor does it force anyone to agree, could be considered "overriding everybody elses"? If I force you to do something (such as remove a head scarf), I am forcing *my* view on you. If I do not force anything on anyone else (such as wearing a head scarf myself), I have not overrided your own views that it is silly.

No as I read my original post and corrected as I saw I mispoke. A dress policy happens to eliminate problems. Many schools have them for various reasons(ie gang colors). If the policy says no head wear, then there is no head wear. If there is a policy that says no Religious symbols(ie France) then the scarves have to go.


So you believe we should relegate these kids to certain places - wall them off - make sure the rest of society doesn't see them, eh?

:rolleyes:

Ok if you want to put words in my mouth. Then I will return the favor. What you suggest is that we should force all people into public schools and conform to what society wants. In fact why don't we have one Religion and outlaw the rest.

I'll need an example of how an article of clothing would slow down the class before I can fully respond to this.

Bear in mind that this is a hypothetical situation, probably never happened.

The teacher is Jewish, his brother was killed in Israel by a Islamist bomb. The teacher is very upset by this, to the point of having a prejudice against Islamic symbolism. One of the kid in the class comes in one day with a headscarf.

Severe emotionnal and mental anguish can lead to the teacher doing a very poor job. It's not the little girl's fault, obviously, but the teacher has a reasonnable argument on why headscarves should not be wore in this class.

Basically, as any religious or secular symbol, it can lead to poor work environment, severe stress and a decrease in productivity.

Would a jewish teacher be upset if a kid came in one morning with a nazi symbol? Would a black teacher be upset if one kid comes in as a member of the KKK? Should the teacher accept it and move on? What if he can't?
And is that reason enough to ban the symbol in ALL the school?

I think the idea of banning them is bad, and thus being against a school dress code stupid, simply because some of those muslim women are damned good looking in them.. or at least some of the ones at my university.

Not to offend anyone who might find that idea offensive, it's my opnion.

That's kind of ironic since the whole point of hijab is to make women less good looking...

When the French ruling went down I asked one our our Muslims, who asked his Iman. He was told that if there are problems, the girls should remove their scarves. The scarf is nothing more then a symbol. It does not make her more of a Muslim.

The headscarf is absolutely NOT a symbol (if it were, why would Muslim men not have to wear it?). It is a part of everyday dress, according to the Islamic principle of Hijab (covering up) - so yes, forcing a Muslim girl to remove it is equivalent to forcing another girl to go around topless - it robs her of her dignity.

As to the question of declaring it contrary to school dress, I'd say it is racist.

Racism within a private organization, especially a religious one, is not against the law.

Technically, you could label the Amish as being racist, even though that isn't on their agenda.

Klansmen could easily claim religious protection as an organization - and some extremist churches have sprung up in the US. Are you going to deny them their white hoods in class (as long as they are quietly paying attention in class), or are you going to punish them for behavior that they "might" engage in?

I say protect everyone equally, or make everyone wear a blue jumpsuit with a little dorky baseball cap - no exceptions.
I don't agree with your no exceptions, all or nothing, approach...there certainly should be exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions....read my previous posts for examples (students with cancer, learning and physical disabilities etc.). That includes dress, even in a school with uniforms.

As for your Klansmen example:
Would a school allow an internationally recognised symbol of racism to be worn? Swastikas are regularly banned and white hoods would be on that list. If a child stood up and screamed, "I hate niggers", she would be punished. I a child wore a shirt that proclaimed, "Chinks and nips, burn in hell," the shirt would be banned. Swastikas and Klansmen outfits are symbols of hatred, no matter how 'innocently' the wearer behaves. You cannot say the same of Muslim dress, since the religion encompasses so much more than the few racists extremists.

As for the Amish...their carts and horses aren't usually seen as symbols of hatred and in any case...their children rarely attend public school.

Certain standards need to be in place....children raised in a nudist colony may feel uncomfortable in clothes, but the other students would be MUCH MORE UNCOMFORTABLE if they weren't.:) If you wear a hat because your hair is greasy and unkempt, and you would be uncomfortable with it off, that is a different issue...the teacher should be looking into whether you have been neglected. If you wear a hat because you are going through chemotherapy, and you feel terrible because of your baldness, then by all means, you should get to wear the hat...as long as it doesn't sport an offensive logo. There can be no absolutes...exceptions must be made depending on the situation and the student. That is equity: fairness....not equality: sameness. Schools in the west have moved from equality to equity as an underlying philosophy. That may change, though I hope it doesn't, but then again....charter schools don't have to follow the rules of public schools...if you really want to be extreme one way or the other, and enough people agree with you, start a school. Otherwise, we need to respect the diversity of our population.


This may be a silly question but how do you rank priority of who should get to do what they want and who should not?

And how do you rank discomfort ... and does that nessisarly reflect the actual comfort factor? or are you just going on more "worthy" causes?

Considering the age of the girl and the laws against such stuff. Assless pants would never happen. Try another approach.


Here's one that COULD happen. In the province of Ontario, Canada, women are legally allowed to be topless. If challenged, that could possibly extend to girls in school unless the board bans it. So:

Forcing a muslim girl to remove her scarf, or veil or burkha is akin to FORCING other girls to remove their shirts.

Here's one that COULD happen. In the province of Ontario, Canada, women are legally allowed to be topless. If challenged, that could possibly extend to girls in school unless the board bans it. So:

Forcing a muslim girl to remove her scarf, or veil or burkha is akin to FORCING other girls to remove their shirts.
See I agree that we should not be forcing them as such to remove it but I don’t see why they should be the exception to the rule either when no one else really gets consideration

Considering the age of the girl and the laws against such stuff. Assless pants would never happen. Try another approach.

What you feel to see is that, to the girl in question, IT IS THE EXACT SAME THING. Much like a rule requiring assless pants should never happen, one requiring that a girl uncover her hair should also never happen.

No as I read my original post and corrected as I saw I mispoke. A dress policy happens to eliminate problems. Many schools have them for various reasons(ie gang colors). If the policy says no head wear, then there is no head wear. If there is a policy that says no Religious symbols(ie France) then the scarves have to go.

(a) I never disputed that a school *can* make a policy banning all headwear - I simply stated that such would be misguided.
(b) The head scarf is not, per se, a "religious symbol." It is an article of clothing with a relation to a religion. In many Mennonite communities, girls are required to wear very plain, homemade dresses. By the French logic, they would have to be forced to wear name brand, flashy stuff to go to school.

:rolleyes:

Ok if you want to put words in my mouth. Then I will return the favor. What you suggest is that we should force all people into public schools and conform to what society wants. In fact why don't we have one Religion and outlaw the rest.

Nothing that I said could even come close to being construed in that way. In fact, I have maintained throughout that this is an issue of *individual* rights. It is your position that forces conformity to a particular view of religion upon everyone.

This may be a silly question but how do you rank priority of who should get to do what they want and who should not?

And how do you rank discomfort ... and does that nessisarly reflect the actual comfort factor? or are you just going on more "worthy" causes?
We're all human, and we make mistakes. Nonetheless, as a teacher, you have to consider the class as a whole in terms of being a class of individuals. If you can't explain to a class why someone is allowed to wear a hat to hide baldness caused by chemotherapy, you don't deserve your position. If you can't explain why a student doesn't have to participate in a human reproduction unit without being derogatory to that student's beliefs, you don't deserve your position. If you can't tell when a student is honestly uncomfortable, or just faking it to get away with something, then you lack the qualities to be a good teacher. Once that door closes, you as a teacher have to make decisions based on your knowledge of your kids...if you don't know them well, you will not succeed in teaching them much of anything. There's no hard and fast book of rules or way of 'prioritizing' these things.

The teacher is Jewish, his brother was killed in Israel by a Islamist bomb. The teacher is very upset by this, to the point of having a prejudice against Islamic symbolism. One of the kid in the class comes in one day with a headscarf.

The teacher bears an unreasonable prejudice and, as such, has no right to be protected from his own bigotted viewpoint.

Severe emotionnal and mental anguish can lead to the teacher doing a very poor job. It's not the little girl's fault, obviously, but the teacher has a reasonnable argument on why headscarves should not be wore in this class.

If the teacher is doing a poor job, the teacher should be fired, not allowed to force his own prejudice onto the class.

I like headscarfs, or is it headscarves?

We're all human, and we make mistakes. Nonetheless, as a teacher, you have to consider the class as a whole in terms of being a class of individuals. If you can't explain to a class why someone is allowed to wear a hat to hide baldness caused by chemotherapy, you don't deserve your position. If you can't explain why a student doesn't have to participate in a human reproduction unit without being derogatory to that student's beliefs, you don't deserve your position. If you can't tell when a student is honestly uncomfortable, or just faking it to get away with something, then you lack the qualities to be a good teacher. Once that door closes, you as a teacher have to make decisions based on your knowledge of your kids...if you don't know them well, you will not succeed in teaching them much of anything. There's no hard and fast book of rules or way of 'prioritizing' these things.
I’m not talking about explanation on why they should wear a hat but an explanation on why no one else in the class can do the same.

Here's one that COULD happen. In the province of Ontario, Canada, women are legally allowed to be topless. If challenged, that could possibly extend to girls in school unless the board bans it. So:

Forcing a muslim girl to remove her scarf, or veil or burkha is akin to FORCING other girls to remove their shirts.
In a society where topless women are a standard and natural occurence, why not. (If you have a good reason for it)

I’m not talking about explanation on why they should wear a hat but an explanation on why no one else in the class can do the same.

I believe Sinehue is referring to situational problems. Any rule which has no exceptions is going to cause problems in the long run. As such, hats may be banned (because they are considered rude, or because they distract kids, etc.). However, *if* a child is undergoing chemotherapy and is self-conscious to the point that their learning will be impaired, an exception to the rule may be in order.

In a society where topless women are a standard and natural occurence, why not. (If you have a good reason for it)

You really are all about conformity, aren't you? Meanwhile, putting students into situations in which they feel exposed and uncomfortable will impair their learning ability.

I believe Sinehue is referring to situational problems. Any rule which has no exceptions is going to cause problems in the long run. As such, hats may be banned (because they are considered rude, or because they distract kids, etc.). However, *if* a child is undergoing chemotherapy and is self-conscious to the point that their learning will be impaired, an exception to the rule may be in order.
It is rude to wear a baseball cap? like I stated before obviously obsenities are a seperate issue

I’m not talking about explanation on why they should wear a hat but an explanation on why no one else in the class can do the same.
I just answered that. Reread my post.

We're all human, and we make mistakes. Nonetheless, as a teacher, you have to consider the class as a whole in terms of being a class of individuals. If you can't explain to a class why someone is allowed to wear a hat to hide baldness caused by chemotherapy, while the rest of them can't you don't deserve your position. If you can't explain why a student doesn't have to participate in a human reproduction unit without being derogatory to that student's beliefs, yet the rest of them MUST attend, you don't deserve your position. If you can't tell when a student is honestly uncomfortable, or just faking it to get away with something, then you lack the qualities to be a good teacher. Once that door closes, you as a teacher have to make decisions based on your knowledge of your kids...if you don't know them well, you will not succeed in teaching them much of anything. There's no hard and fast book of rules or way of 'prioritizing' these things.

There, I added a little to make it clearer to you.

It is rude to wear a baseball cap? like I stated before obviously obsenities are a seperate issue

*shrug* I was brought up to believe that it is rude to wear a hat inside, as were many. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I know that it is a very, very common viewpoint.

It is rude to wear a baseball cap? like I stated before obviously obsenities are a seperate issue

No, but it is not considerd smart. Part of the point of a school uniform is to dress children in a manner befiting a workplace (note I say part. Another Part is to impose conforimity so as to keep a better form of order)

I just answered that. Reread my post.
Maybe I should have stated it as why are they held to a different standard … then everyone else … as far as head dress goes

In a society where topless women are a standard and natural occurence, why not. (If you have a good reason for it)
Don't be ridiculous...if you tried to force girls to go nude, you'd have a firestorm on your hands you'd never recover from. There is NO good reason for violating someone's modesty, bar the need for lifesaving procedures (and even then, you must respect religious diversity, as in blood-transfusions and so on).

I can't believe this thread has spawned so much debate. I though this was an open an closed kind of thing. Abridgement of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion out to be sufficiet grounds to get this issue resolved quickly. I'm just dumbfounded at this discussion.

*shrug* I was brought up to believe that it is rude to wear a hat inside, as were many. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I know that it is a very, very common viewpoint.
Then would their wearing a head dress not constitute rudeness (at least as much impled rudeness as mine)

I dont know of anyonyone that purposly wears a hat to be rude so either way religious reasons or comfort reasons have the same implied rudeness to the people who find wearing hats rude?

The teacher bears an unreasonable prejudice and, as such, has no right to be protected from his own bigotted viewpoint.
That teacher has the same rights to not be subjected to anguish in his workplace and that is what is happenning here. The right of the teacher should pass after the right of the children? Even to the detriment of the whole class? As a father with a kid in this class, I strongly object to your kid wearing a headscarf because it hinders my kid's learning experience. Through no fault of your own, mind you, but it is a disturbance that cannot be tolerated for the good of the whole class.

If the teacher is doing a poor job, the teacher should be fired, not allowed to force his own prejudice onto the class.
Ah but the teacher was doing a fine job before the scarf arrived. Should you fire a good teacher who has been working so far because of some kid's view on what is modest or not.

And on that, I'm bid you a nice day as I'm off.

Maybe I should have stated it as why are they held to a different standard … then everyone else … as far as head dress goes
Because. Not. Wearing. A. Scarf. Will. Not. Make. The. Other. Students. Feel. Immodest. Clear?

I can't believe this thread has spawned so much debate. I though this was an open an closed kind of thing. Abridgement of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion out to be sufficiet grounds to get this issue resolved quickly. I'm just dumbfounded at this discussion.
You shouldn't be...it's close to real life...this same debate is going on in school boards all across western countries.

No, but it is not considerd smart. Part of the point of a school uniform is to dress children in a manner befiting a workplace (note I say part. Another Part is to impose conforimity so as to keep a better form of order)
Then replace baseball with classic hat … either way (and no work dress code requires EXACTLY the same thing ... part of being prepared is learning to dress yourself and make that decision)

Then replace baseball with classic hat … either way (and no work dress code requires EXACTLY the same thing ... part of being prepared is learning to dress yourself and make that decision)

1) Or no hat

2) Yes, but their is a basic line of conformity (ie suit)

Because. Not. Wearing. A. Scarf. Will. Not. Make. The. Other. Students. Feel. Immodest. Clear?
But what if it does? What if I don’t feel comfortable without my hat (honestly now in college I wear it so much I DO feel uncomfortable without it)
What if wearing the scarf (like republicans said about hats) is implied rudeness then having the scarf is rude (along with hats)

That teacher has the same rights to not be subjected to anguish in his workplace and that is what is happenning here.

The anguish is due to a personal, bigotted view - not something unfair. If I work at a factory and machinery brings me anguish, do I get to force the factory to get rid of all the machines? If you are unable to perform a job, you don't get that job. Period.

The right of the teacher should pass after the right of the children?

First of all, there is no right to not be offended by another individual. Second of all, yes. School is for children, not for teachers. If the teacher is unable to perform his job, he should not have it.

Even to the detriment of the whole class? As a father with a kid in this class, I strongly object to your kid wearing a headscarf because it hinders my kid's learning experience. Through no fault of your own, mind you, but it is a disturbance that cannot be tolerated for the good of the whole class.

The teacher is causing the disturbance, not the student. Therefore it is the teacher who must go.

Ah but the teacher was doing a fine job before the scarf arrived. Should you fire a good teacher who has been working so far because of some kid's view on what is modest or not.

If I have always been doing a fine job at a factory, but one day I come in drunk and cause an accident that stops production, should I get to keep my job just because I was doing a fine job before that?

If a teacher cannot set aside personal prejudice and perform their job effectively, one cannot call them a "fine teacher" with a straight face.

Don't be ridiculous...if you tried to force girls to go nude, you'd have a firestorm on your hands you'd never recover from. There is NO good reason for violating someone's modesty, bar the need for lifesaving procedures (and even then, you must respect religious diversity, as in blood-transfusions and so on).
Our society defines what is acceptable and what isn't. You object to this because you find it offensible but not to that because you don't. Surely there are things banned right now that are acceptable. Why not this?

Would you object to a ban on firearms at school? Why? I feel safe with my firearms. Surely, you infringe on my right to feel safe.

Because. Not. Wearing. A. Scarf. Will. Not. Make. The. Other. Students. Feel. Immodest. Clear?

Yes but being. forced. to. wear. a. uniform. makes. most. people. restricted. in. some. manner. or. other

That teacher has the same rights to not be subjected to anguish in his workplace and that is what is happenning here. The right of the teacher should pass after the right of the children? Even to the detriment of the whole class? As a father with a kid in this class, I strongly object to your kid wearing a headscarf because it hinders my kid's learning experience. Through no fault of your own, mind you, but it is a disturbance that cannot be tolerated for the good of the whole class. The teacher needs to be considered, yes...but if they are suffering emotional anguish due to traumatic events, they need counselling and should be on stress leave. The same goes for your kid. How could another child's headscarf prevent your child from learning? If your child reacts to that scarf because of a traumatic event, get counselling. He or she probably shouldn't be back in class yet.

Ah but the teacher was doing a fine job before the scarf arrived. Should you fire a good teacher who has been working so far because of some kid's view on what is modest or not. Yes. If a teacher can not follow the directives of the school board, whether they agree with it or not, they should be dismissed. If the school allows the scarf, and the teacher does not, it is grounds for dismissal. And visa versa. This is not an issue that can be decided by teachers.

You shouldn't be...it's close to real life...this same debate is going on in school boards all across western countries.

Yes, but, in the States anyway, the Constitutionally guarenteed rights mentioned above are more than sufficient to defend this individual's wearing a headscarf to class. Next thing you know guys hair will be required to be off the collar and girls will have to wear skirts to class. This is insanity and the intollerance an bigotry of it are incomprehensible to me and I'm a conservative Christian.

But what if it does? What if I don’t feel comfortable without my hat (honestly now in college I wear it so much I DO feel uncomfortable without it)
What if wearing the scarf (like republicans said about hats) is implied rudeness then having the scarf is rude (along with hats)
Your discomfort is not based in modesty. To put it bluntly, you don't feel 'slutty' with no hat on. If you do feel that being hatless is slutty, please explain what that discomfort is based on. If you have a weird growth, and you hide it with a hat, most teachers will be understanding of this.

Our society defines what is acceptable and what isn't. You object to this because you find it offensible but not to that because you don't. Surely there are things banned right now that are acceptable. Why not this?

Would you object to a ban on firearms at school? Why? I feel safe with my firearms. Surely, you infringe on my right to feel safe.
You get sillier and sillier. Yes, society defines what is acceptable. Topless women are allowed in Ontario, but that doesn't make it socially acceptable. Anyway, we're going in circles and I'm tired. Enough.

Ok this is getting all confused so I am going to sum my POV up (mostly because I am arguing both sides at some point or another)

My point is freedom to wear what does not interfere with others … not to force others to do what’s immodest to them.

So Muslim students should be allowed head dress because what they wish to wear does not effect other students ability to learn? ABSOLUTLY it is for their comfort and distracts no one.

Now I want to wear a cap because I like caps and are made more comfortable by them (excluding obscenity)? WHY NOT? What I am wearing adds to my comfort and individuality without distracting or making anyone uncomfortable

I don’t see why they should both be allowed (THAT is what I am arguing not that they should be forced to REMOVE theirs rather I should be allowed to wear mine for most of the same reasons)

Yes but being. forced. to. wear. a. uniform. makes. most. people. restricted. in. some. manner. or. other

Restriction and being forced to feel immodest are very different things. Can you show me a single school which requires a uniform that is strapless? How about one that requires extremely short skirts or shorts? Can you show me any school with a uniform that denies a girl the right to wear a bra?

Yes but being. forced. to. wear. a. uniform. makes. most. people. restricted. in. some. manner. or. other
So do laws.

Your discomfort is not based in modesty. To put it bluntly, you don't feel 'slutty' with no hat on. If you do feel that being hatless is slutty, please explain what that discomfort is based on. If you have a weird growth, and you hide it with a hat, most teachers will be understanding of this.
No growth but that goes back to my original statement how do you gauge what is accepted level of discomfort before you say they can wear a hat?

You get sillier and sillier. Yes, society defines what is acceptable. Topless women are allowed in Ontario, but that doesn't make it socially acceptable. Anyway, we're going in circles and I'm tired. Enough.

Even if it were socially acceptable, it wouldn't matter. It would still be unjust to force those who did not find it acceptable to conform.

(b) The head scarf is not, per se, a "religious symbol." It is an article of clothing with a relation to a religion. In many Mennonite communities, girls are required to wear very plain, homemade dresses. By the French logic, they would have to be forced to wear name brand, flashy stuff to go to school.
I must add that wearing something on his head, and with a religious meaning (to conform to religious prescriptions) is against at least two rules in France: no hat (you must leave your hat or anything else covering your head when you are in class) and no religious symbols VISIBLE (you can wear a cross if it is small and the best, hidden by your clothes).

The France's logic is that the school is laic (laïque), and no religion is allowed to be visible, for various reasons like respect of other religions (including atheists - a kind of religion ;)) or that you must not influence children, or as said before, you could offense or inspire hatred by your wearing.

School is a kind of neutral place, if you want to bring your religion with you, just take your mind and your faith, you can wear little ornaments, if they are not visible. Because (i think it's a reason) when you wear a religious symbol, you make a distinction between you and the others, you mean "I AM a member of that religion, and YOU ARE NOT a member". Do you understand what i mean? (i have difficulties tonight to speak english..)

The fundamentals of France beliefs is that every French is a French, not a member of a community made of French. And the school is the only place where you can hope to teach that to people, because you have the children without their parents (who could force them to be a member of that community/religion).

These rules don't apply in superior classes, when you are above 18, because you are considered as adult, and by this you can freely do what you want, and we can assume that you made that choice freely. That's what a Republic is.

Even if it were socially acceptable, it wouldn't matter. It would still be unjust to force those who did not find it acceptable to conform.
Then I do not find it acceptable to be forced to take my hat off ... why should I be made to conform?

Then I do not find it acceptable to be forced to take my hat off ... why should I be made to conform?

Note: I never said you should.

I must add that wearing something on his head, and with a religious meaning (to conform to religious prescriptions) is against at least two rules in France: no hat (you must leave your hat or anything else covering your head when you are in class) and no religious symbols VISIBLE (you can wear a cross if it is small and the best, hidden by your clothes).

The France's logic is that the school is laic (laïque), and no religion is allowed to be visible, for various reasons like respect of other religions (including atheists - a kind of religion ;)) or that you must not influence children, or as said before, you could offense or inspire hatred by your wearing.

School is a kind of neutral place, if you want to bring your religion with you, just take your mind and your faith, you can wear little ornaments, if they are not visible. Because (i think it's a reason) when you wear a religious symbol, you make a distinction between you and the others, you mean "I AM a member of that religion, and YOU ARE NOT a member". Do you understand what i mean? (i have difficulties tonight to speak english..)

The fundamentals of France beliefs is that every French is a French, not a member of a community made of French. And the school is the only place where you can hope to teach that to people, because you have the children without their parents (who could force them to be a member of that community/religion).

These rules don't apply in superior classes, when you are above 18, because you are considered as adult, and by this you can freely do what you want, and we can assume that you made that choice freely. That's what a Republic is.

I understand the logic that France uses. However, it is completely irrational to believe that someone should be forced to conform. France may want every single French person to be exactly the same, but that is a silly view. They are doing their students extreme disservice by disallowing individuals to be individuals.

Meanwhile, when secularism gets to the point where it is forced onto the individual, rather than simply being enforced upon the institution, it has gone well beyond secularism and is now its own form of religious indoctrination.

So do laws.

Thats my arguement. If you want to be part of an institution, you have to abide by its laws. That is fair.

Note: I never said you should.
Sorry meant that as rhetorical not personal

No growth but that goes back to my original statement how do you gauge what is accepted level of discomfort before you say they can wear a hat?
Like I said before, you have to make a judgement call. Are you going to be so uncomfortable without your hat that you can no longer learn? Why? The cause needs to be determined because it may point to something deeper. If it is rooted in modesty, we have an answer. If it is because your father beats you for going bear-headed at the dinner table, the issue is abuse, not modesty and needs followup. If your hair is greasy and unkempt, perhaps we are dealing with neglect, not just modesty. It depends on the situation. You want absolutes, but there aren't any.

Perhaps we should refocus the debate. How about "Should a schools right to define uniform be paramount above individual concerns". I say yes (Unless there is a medical reason)

Even if it were socially acceptable, it wouldn't matter. It would still be unjust to force those who did not find it acceptable to conform.
I agree. I'm being curt.

Thats my arguement. If you want to be part of an institution, you have to abide by its laws. That is fair.

And yet you are completely incapable of understanding the fact that sometimes, the laws are unjust in and of themselves.

Perhaps we should refocus the debate. How about "Should a schools right to define uniform be paramount above individual concerns". I say yes (Unless there is a medical reason)

Not if the school receives any government money.

Not if the school receives any government money.

What has that got to do with it?

Perhaps we should refocus the debate. How about "Should a schools right to define uniform be paramount above individual concerns". I say yes (Unless there is a medical reason)
Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist.
393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Docket Number: 21

Argued:


November 12, 1968

Decided:


February 24, 1969

Subjects:


First Amendment: Miscellaneous
Facts of the Case

John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of Des Moins' school districts resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.
Question Presented

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
Conclusion

The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

Like I said before, you have to make a judgement call. Are you going to be so uncomfortable without your hat that you can no longer learn? Why? The cause needs to be determined because it may point to something deeper. If it is rooted in modesty, we have an answer. If it is because your father beats you for going bear-headed at the dinner table, the issue is abuse, not modesty and needs followup. If your hair is greasy and unkempt, perhaps we are dealing with neglect, not just modesty. It depends on the situation. You want absolutes, but there aren't any.
I don’t think you are getting it I was pointing out the fact that there ARE not absolutes, so why is the line being drawn where it is … how does wearing my non obscene hat effect anyone else? And if it doesn’t then why was I not allowed to wear it?
I understand that there has to be a call somewhere but with this physical personal choice of head dress why is the line drawn there?

Here's one that COULD happen. In the province of Ontario, Canada, women are legally allowed to be topless. If challenged, that could possibly extend to girls in school unless the board bans it. So:

Forcing a muslim girl to remove her scarf, or veil or burkha is akin to FORCING other girls to remove their shirts.

Well I don't know about that law. Was there a law saying you can't be topless no matter what? Does it involve a case of a woman wanting to sunbath in her back yard? Have a nudist colony?

If you are going to allow a girl to wear whatever she wants because it's "racist" to deny her, then you don't have dress policies.

What has that got to do with it?

If the school receives government funds, it does not have any right to inflict undue stresses upon individual students. It may be allowed to require a uniform, but this right does not trump the rights of the individual to things like freedom of religion, the right to receive a proper education, etc.

Meanwhile, a purely private institution can require that you have green eyes to get in, if it so chooses.

Thats my arguement. If you want to be part of an institution, you have to abide by its laws. That is fair.
No law says you can't wear a head scarf (in Canada). However, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that no one will be discriminated against due to their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and so on and so forth.

What has that got to do with it?
Are you serious? Do you not understand the difference between public and private education? Public education, paid for with public funds, must be open to EVERYONE, no exceptions. Private schools that are privately funded can do whatever the hell they want as long as they follow government approved curriculum.

Are you serious? Do you not understand the difference between public and private education? Public education, paid for with public funds, must be open to EVERYONE, no exceptions. Private schools that are privately funded can do whatever the hell they want as long as they follow government approved curriculum.

I understand fully but in diffrent schools in Britain there are diffrent rules. I dont see why rules should be detrtimined by where you get your money from.

I don’t think you are getting it I was pointing out the fact that there ARE not absolutes, so why is the line being drawn where it is … how does wearing my non obscene hat effect anyone else? And if it doesn’t then why was I not allowed to wear it?
I understand that there has to be a call somewhere but with this physical personal choice of head dress why is the line drawn there?
Ah, yes...ok, I gotcha. I don't agree with the line. Unless there is a specific reason (i.e, gang colours being worn), hats should be allowed in class if they do not interfere with learning (like being too tight and cutting off circulation to the brain...:))

If the clothes a person wears to school are inflammatory or distracting to other students, the school has the right to request the student not to wear them.

A few years ago when I was in high school, a student was asked to remove an anarchy patch from his jacket and his shotgun shell earrings.

I'm not agreeing with this policy, but that is the policy most schools abide by (public schools, at least, though not colleges). There's also issues surrounding what kind of clothing can be inflammatory or distracting, etc., so it's all just a huge mess.

In the United States, at least, the Supreme Court has ruled that a student's rights do not cease to exist just because they enter the school. A case could be made for allowing the headgear, just as cases have come up about gay students wearing pride shirts.

I understand fully but in diffrent schools in Britain there are diffrent rules. I dont see why rules should be detrtimined by where you get your money from.
Public schools are run by the government, and thus must follow the government's rules, private schools are run by other people, they can do whatever they want, within reason.

No law says you can't wear a head scarf (in Canada). However, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that no one will be discriminated against due to their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and so on and so forth.

Yes, fine. But what if a school defines in its uniform code that head wear is banned. That is not discriminitory. And more to the point, if a school says its uniform is black blazer, grey tie, white shirt, black trousers/skirt etc and that is uniform, and Muslim dress does not conform to that then the dress is not uniform. Thats not discrimination, its just implimenting the rule. It doesnt specificly outlaw the Muslim dress, it outlaws all dress apart from the uniform.

Ah, yes...ok, I gotcha. I don't agree with the line. Unless there is a specific reason (i.e, gang colours being worn), hats should be allowed in class if they do not interfere with learning (like being too tight and cutting off circulation to the brain...:))
Ok I think we understand each other I was not arguing FOR a rule that makes other people uncomfortable (I.E not wearing headscarf’s)
I just don’t understand why others are not allowed to do what makes them more comfortable (i.e. wearing hats) as long as both do not interfere with others learning

(more freedoms not less)

I understand fully but in diffrent schools in Britain there are diffrent rules. I dont see why rules should be detrtimined by where you get your money from.

Are you telling me that Britain does not have any rules at all protecting individual rights? I doubt that very seriously.

Well I don't know about that law. Was there a law saying you can't be topless no matter what? Does it involve a case of a woman wanting to sunbath in her back yard? Have a nudist colony?
Yes, women were banned from going topless, but men weren't. A woman wanted to walk around topless in public. She won. Few bother to exercise that right.

If you are going to allow a girl to wear whatever she wants because it's "racist" then you don't have dress policies.
I don't. However, I don't think kids should be allowed to come to school in slutty clothes either...though definitions of slutty vary, and need to be decided on by a community and its school board. Also, I do not agree, as I've said before that this should ever be an 'all or none' issue...meaning total freedom or total control.

Public schools are run by the government, and thus must follow the government's rules, private schools are run by other people, they can do whatever they want, within reason.

I dont know what country you come from but in Britian the only rules the government lay down for schools specificly are the curriculum and the exams and a few policiys on organisation of paperwork. Uniform is a school to school policy.

Why not? politicains do it all the time...

Yes, fine. But what if a school defines in its uniform code that head wear is banned. That is not discriminitory. And more to the point, if a school says its uniform is black blazer, grey tie, white shirt, black trousers/skirt etc and that is uniform, and Muslim dress does not conform to that then the dress is not uniform. Thats not discrimination, its just implimenting the rule. It doesnt specificly outlaw the Muslim dress, it outlaws all dress apart from the uniform.

If you would like to take this stance, then you must be prepared to argue in favor of a public school that requires the students to wear crotchless panties, miniskirts, and little stickers over their nipples.

Are you telling me that Britain does not have any rules at all protecting individual rights? I doubt that very seriously.

I didnt say that. I said that where you get your money from has little effect on how you run your school. In Britian the only things government funded schools have to conform to are internal burueacratic regulation, the curriculum and the exams. Uniforms and other policys are individual school policies.

I dont know what country you come from but in Britian the only rules the government lay down for schools specificly are the curriculum and the exams and a few policiys on organisation of paperwork. Uniform is a school to school policy.
"United States"

However, the point is that if it is government run, it is subject to government rules, including whatever documents that insure rights. That's why Tinker v. Des Moines came up...you can't restrict rights without a legitimate reason, even in a school, and a person's right to follow their religion outweighs the marginal at best complaint that a headscarf causes a disruption.

I didnt say that. I said that where you get your money from has little effect on how you run your school. In Britian the only things government funded schools have to conform to are internal burueacratic regulation, the curriculum and the exams. Uniforms and other policys are individual school policies.

So they don't have to conform to *all* of Britain's laws? - Only the ones regarding curriculum?

If you would like to take this stance, then you must be prepared to argue in favor of a public school that requires the students to wear crotchless panties, miniskirts, and little stickers over their nipples.

I think that could be fine, but I think said school would rouse a fright in the media very quickly and proberbly get shut down for lack of pupils. I wouldnt support such an idea, but I am saying its possible (just very unlikely to work)

So they don't have to conform to *all* of Britain's laws? - Only the ones regarding curriculum?

Obviously they conform to British laws, Uniform however is the responsablity of the school.

I understand fully but in diffrent schools in Britain there are diffrent rules. I dont see why rules should be detrtimined by where you get your money from.
It absolutely should. If rich parents want to fund schools and be selective in admissions, fine...if my kid can't go there, fine. If a school is funded by my tax money and my kid is not allowed in because she is not Christian, or is short, or hates tomatoes, then we have a problem. Private schools can make admissions based on whatever they like...public schools can not.

I understand the logic that France uses. However, it is completely irrational to believe that someone should be forced to conform. France may want every single French person to be exactly the same, but that is a silly view. They are doing their students extreme disservice by disallowing individuals to be individuals.
No you're wrong on that point: it's not to make everyone conform, and it's not to negate the religion/beliefs of anyone (as i said, come with your religion in mind and your faith, doesn't it sufficient?). The same applies to politics, you are not allowed to advertise for politics nor wear politics attributes in school, idem for commercial ads.

In a school, neutrality is necessary, you can't make the individuals be neutral, but you can make their environnement and their education the more neutral possible. In France, religion is separated from the State since the beginning of the last century, we live in a "pure laic" State: education is made without political/religious point of views but that doesn't say it negates religion/politics, we learn them at school, but with a laic "point of view", a neutral one.

How to be neutral if students wear the one a nazi cross, the other a crucified christ, another one a muslim ornament, etc. (the same for teachers and for the buildings etc)?

We don't expect everyone turns into a single and conform template. You have your individuality in your mind, that's the most important thing.

(I feel limited by the language barrier, sorry for my poor explanations...)

It absolutely should. If rich parents want to fund schools and be selective in admissions, fine...if my kid can't go there, fine. If a school is funded by my tax money and my kid is not allowed in because she is not Christian, or is short, or hates tomatoes, then we have a problem. Private schools can make admissions based on whatever they like...public schools can not.

Depends on the nature of the school. If its governemnt catogry is a faith school then it has every right to discriminate on the grounds of faith, as it is such an instiution. If you are a Muslim crying discrimination because you cannot get your child into a Catholic faith school, you are pretty stupid.

I think that could be fine, but I think said school would rouse a fright in the media very quickly and proberbly get shut down for lack of pupils. I wouldnt support such an idea, but I am saying its possible (just very unlikely to work)

Fine then, if you would support a people being forced to dress as such in a public school, you can support a similar ban on headscarves. I think you are completely irrational, but that is fine.

Obviously they conform to British laws, Uniform however is the responsablity of the school.

Impinging on individual rights would be breaking laws.

Fine then, if you would support a people being forced to dress as such in a public school, you can support a similar ban on headscarves. I think you are completely irrational, but that is fine.

I dont say I support people being dressed in the way you described. Just the principal that allows them to.

I don't. However, I don't think kids should be allowed to come to school in slutty clothes either...though definitions of slutty vary, and need to be decided on by a community and its school board.

Wait a minute. If the community and the school board decides head wear is wrong, how is that different then allowing or denying slutty clothes?

If a family comes from a country that has strict dress requirements, does that mean the new country (or community) have to change it's viewpoints and or laws?

If a school had a policy saying no head wear, then a Muslim joins, they have to change the policy? What if a Jain follower joins, they tend to wear as little as possible as clothing is considered a possession and thus bad. What then?

If you allow headscarfs, then you have to allow hats and what not.

Making a special case for certain people can in itself cause problems by the simple fact is says this group is special and does not have to abide by such rules.

Impinging on individual rights would be breaking laws.

British law nowhere supports the idea that you can wear whatever you want in school.

I dont say I support people being dressed in the way you described. Just the principal that allows them to.

Wrong. You said you support the principal of forcing them to do so in order to attend public school and that a public school could make and enforce such a rule.

British law nowhere supports the idea that you can wear whatever you want in school.

You are being obtuse on purpose, aren't you?

Wait a minute. If the community and the school board decides head wear is wrong, how is that different then allowing or denying slutty clothes?

If a family comes from a country that has strict dress requirements, does that mean the new country (or community) have to change it's viewpoints and or laws?

If a school had a policy saying no head wear, then a Muslim joins, they have to change the policy? What if a Jain follower joins, they tend to wear as little as possible as clothing is considered a possession and thus bad. What then?

If you allow headscarfs, then you have to allow hats and what not.

Making a special case for certain people can in itself cause problems by the simple fact is says this group is special and does not have to abide by such rules.

Slippery slope fallacy. (In the US at least) There is no reason for banning headscarves, as they really aren't showy or flashy and are for a religious reason (as pointed out before), so they would be protected under the first amendment, but a hat wouldn't be as they have no point besides freedom of speech, which can be restricted in schools if it is disruptive to the behavior of the school (which it is).

Wrong. You said you support the principal of forcing them to do so in order to attend public school and that a public school could make and enforce such a rule.

Ok lets make this clear.

1) I do not support the uniform of schools for girls being as you described

2) I do however support the idea that a state school can order any uniform it likes.

You are being obtuse on purpose, aren't you?

Perhaps I should rephrase. British law allows schools a great deal of autonomy with regard to uniform. Also while there is freedom of religion in the UK, there are laws restricitng things which are considered unlawful (Eg animal sacrifices). If your religion states you have to break the law, you cannot get out on the "My religon says so" arguement. Its still a law.

Yes, fine. But what if a school defines in its uniform code that head wear is banned. That is not discriminitory. And more to the point, if a school says its uniform is black blazer, grey tie, white shirt, black trousers/skirt etc and that is uniform, and Muslim dress does not conform to that then the dress is not uniform. Thats not discrimination, its just implimenting the rule. It doesnt specificly outlaw the Muslim dress, it outlaws all dress apart from the uniform.
By your definition, saying that no one can wear a bra to school is not discriminatory...the fact that (most) boys wouldn't have anyway doesn't matter.

Slippery slope fallacy. (In the US at least) There is no reason for banning headscarves, as they really aren't showy or flashy and are for a religious reason (as pointed out before), so they would be protected under the first amendment, but a hat wouldn't be as they have no point besides freedom of speech, which can be restricted in schools if it is disruptive to the behavior of the school (which it is).

Awww somebody read Stephs page.

Many schools have dress codes and many include no head wear.

Again what do you do for the Jain follower? His relgious freedom is impuned by making him conform to a dress code.

As to the Constitution argument, there is already precidence on the matter. A Muslim woman who wanted to be a cop that wanted to wear a full covering(not a Birca(sp?) ) but her head. She was denied due to safety requirements. She sued on Religous grounds and lost.

Again, if the policy was in place before the girl arrived and you are going to make an exception. Toss the policy.

By your definition, saying that no one can wear a bra to school is not discriminatory...the fact that (most) boys wouldn't have anyway doesn't matter.

Not rearly. It says "No headwear" at all. Its not just Muslims affected by this. Its anyone who wants to wear headwear.

Impinging on individual rights would be breaking laws.


Dem, this is getting scary. We agree twice in one week. Are the planets aligned funny or something??? :confused: ;) :fluffle:

Awww somebody read Stephs page.

Many schools have dress codes and many include no head wear.

Again what do you do for the Jain follower? His relgious freedom is impuned by making him conform to a dress code.

As to the Constitution argument, there is already precidence on the matter. A Muslim woman who wanted to be a cop that wanted to wear a full covering(not a Birca(sp?) ) but her head. She was denied due to safety requirements. She sued on Religous grounds and lost.

Again, if the policy was in place before the girl arrived and you are going to make an exception. Toss the policy.
No, actually, I didn't...

His right to religious freedoms would be weighed against the disruption it would cause...which would be quite large, and again is a false comparison. However, with the muslim girl, the disruption caused by the headscarf is minimal, and it does not interfere with the workings of the school (there is case law on this too, ie Tinker), so a lawsuit would most likely have the policy overturned.

Depends on the nature of the school. If its governemnt catogry is a faith school then it has every right to discriminate on the grounds of faith, as it is such an instiution. If you are a Muslim crying discrimination because you cannot get your child into a Catholic faith school, you are pretty stupid.
You've hit a tender spot...I don't support the idea of having a faith-based school funded publically unless admission is open to EVERYONE, Catholic or not. It riles me up to no end that everyone in a district pays to run a school, but if your children are muslim, atheist or whatever, they can not attend that school. In Canada, that is the only exception....no other public school can be faith based and discriminate on those grounds...just the Catholic ones. :mad:

Ok lets make this clear.

1) I do not support the uniform of schools for girls being as you described

2) I do however support the idea that a state school can order any uniform it likes.

1 and 2 are incompatible. You either support anything and everything the school may place in a uniform, or you don't.

Oh christ this has to be the most anal retentive thing ever. If a girl wants to wear a headscarve, fucking let her. Who is she offended? Who is she hurting?

1 and 2 are incompatible. You either support anything and everything the school may place in a uniform, or you don't.

Volitare (Paraphrase) "I will fight you with my every fibre of my being for what you say, but will defend you to my last drop of blood for your right to say it"

I dont support your idea that girls should be forced by schools to wear stupidly skimpy clothes but I support the right of schools to make that their uniform policy should they so wish

Oh christ this has to be the most anal retentive thing ever. If a girl wants to wear a headscarve, fucking let her. Who is she offended? Who is she hurting?

Oh I know. :)

I am just arguing from the other side for fun. ;)

If you allow headscarfs, then you have to allow hats and what not.
Yes.
(But you can not force people to wear less clothing)
Making a special case for certain people can in itself cause problems by the simple fact is says this group is special and does not have to abide by such rules.We do this all the time. Jehovah Witnesses don't have to participate in school-wide celebrations. Some students don't have to study Human Reproduction if their parent's don't want them to. Disabled children don't have to do jumping jacks. It's based on reasonability. A girl dressed like a hooker is pushing the bounds of social acceptability, and it serves no purpose. Then again, I'm not against purple hair.:) It depends on the community...the values of a community are reflected to some extent in the school. A racist community will likely have spillover into the school...that is reality. We need to balance community wants with the needs of individual community members. This is not a place for majority rule...this is a place for compromise and acceptance...that is why this whole issue is so fluid and changing...our society is fluid and changing too.

Before I go on, I should state that I'm utterly undecided about this issue, but to throw a couple of points into the general melee...

The argument could be raised that schools should be one aspect of cultural melange where children get the right simply to be children, at least up to the point of the age of consent, without feeling the pressures of socio-sexual and religous expectation. My partner is a secular muslim, and finds the idea of being forced to veil an uncomfortable patriarchal mode of control. It would be foolish to pretend that there are not a substantial number of children currently being denied the free agency to decide their own interpretation of their faith. I do feel that it should be a school's place to encourage free thought, perhaps to previde a cosmopolitan oasis in the cultural development of any child's mind, and as such, kids should have the right to be treated as equals. Just as a multitude of faiths and systems of belief shold be taught, so perhaps a little freedom from patriarchal control should be allowed... :fluffle:

Ok lets make this clear.

1) I do not support the uniform of schools for girls being as you described

2) I do however support the idea that a state school can order any uniform it likes.
Yes, we understand. That makes this true:
Wrong. You said you support the principal of forcing them to do so in order to attend public school and that a public school could make and enforce such a rule.

You've hit a tender spot...I don't support the idea of having a faith-based school funded publically unless admission is open to EVERYONE, Catholic or not. It riles me up to no end that everyone in a district pays to run a school, but if your children are muslim, atheist or whatever, they can not attend that school. In Canada, that is the only exception....no other public school can be faith based and discriminate on those grounds...just the Catholic ones. :mad:

Sounds like you have a State religion to me... Okay that is a little exagerative, but I agree with you on this. Gov. funding should never support religous ideology because the bridge to a State religion is built so quickly and easily.

Yes, we understand. That makes this true:

Ok yes. See my Volitiare quote

Volitare (Paraphrase) "I will fight you with my every fibre of my being for what you say, but will defend you to my last drop of blood for your right to say it"

I dont support your idea that girls should be forced by schools to wear stupidly skimpy clothes but I support the right of schools to make that their uniform policy should they so wish

By supporting a ban on headscarves, you are supporting a school that forces girls to wear "stupidly skimpy clothes." The fact that you personally, do not think a lack of a headscarf is skimpy is irrelevant.

I simply find it funny that you wholeheartedly support the ban on headscarves, but do not wholeheartedly support a school that requires what you personally consider to be skimpy. In other words, your prejudice is showing.

Meanwhile: The quote you are using applies to *individual* rights, not government rights. That is, unless you intend to fight for the right of the government to do things that you don't agree with, which would pretty much do away with representative government.

Not rearly. It says "No headwear" at all. Its not just Muslims affected by this. Its anyone who wants to wear headwear.
Right, just like the 'no bra' rule affects everyone, not just girls. :rolleyes:

Yes.
(But you can not force people to wear less clothing)
We do this all the time. Jehovah Witnesses don't have to participate in school-wide celebrations. Some students don't have to study Human Reproduction if their parent's don't want them to. Disabled children don't have to do jumping jacks. It's based on reasonability. A girl dressed like a hooker is pushing the bounds of social acceptability, and it serves no purpose. Then again, I'm not against purple hair.:) It depends on the community...the values of a community are reflected to some extent in the school. A racist community will likely have spillover into the school...that is reality. We need to balance community wants with the needs of individual community members. This is not a place for majority rule...this is a place for compromise and acceptance...that is why this whole issue is so fluid and changing...our society is fluid and changing too.

Oh I know. As said before I was just debating the opposite for fun. Our schools here are pretty level headed about such things. Being the liberal commie fruit state of California. ;)

We(at least in my area) don't have much in the way of Religous strife unless of course the Christians are complaining ;)

How do you think you'll be able to express yourself if not via your clothing?

How? How indeed? Perhaps through one's words and actions, which is ultimately how people are judged by others that do more than look at them from across the room. Write poetry, start a band, do charity work...there are all manner of things that define a person, and the clothes are one very minor facet.

Right, just like the 'no bra' rule affects everyone, not just girls. :rolleyes:

Doesn't if affect the boys in a good way? :D

My partner is a secular muslim, and finds the idea of being forced to veil an uncomfortable patriarchal mode of control.

However, many women *voluntarily* wear said veil. No one is talking about people being forced to do so here.

Oh christ this has to be the most anal retentive thing ever. If a girl wants to wear a headscarve, fucking let her. Who is she offended? Who is she hurting?
*whining* "But if she gets to, *sniff, whine* that means I should get to wear my favourite ball cap too...*sniff, sniff*...otherwise it's just not FAAIIIRRRR *bursts into tears*.

Sorry, that was uncalled for, but I'm punchy today.

Right, just like the 'no bra' rule affects everyone, not just girls. :rolleyes:

No, because it is not a forced diffrence.

Just as a multitude of faiths and systems of belief shold be taught, so perhaps a little freedom from patriarchal control should be allowed... :fluffle:

Allowed, but never forced. Although, parental rights, guardianship and legal age are issues here as well.

However, many women *voluntarily* wear said veil. No one is talking about people being forced to do so here.
Sure, many women do. I was careful to state that the people I was referring to were under the age of consent. Should we not allow a few years of non-sexualised childhood to people, free from the socio political concerns of adults?

Sure, many women do. I was careful to state that the people I was referring to were under the age of consent. Should we not allow a few years of non-sexualised childhood to people, free from the socio political concerns of adults?

Not if it requires infrindging upon parental rights.

Sure, many women do. I was careful to state that the people I was referring to were under the age of consent. Should we not allow a few years of non-sexualised childhood to people, free from the socio political concerns of adults?

Most girls don't begin wearing them until puberty. Surely at this point, a girl is able to determine what she feels modest in? I would've felt uncomfortable being forced to go braless when I was thirteen, should someone have forced that upon me?

Not if it requires infrindging upon parental rights.
Now this touches upon the crux of my argument... are parental rights always fundamentally in the best interests of a child's education? If a parent were to be racist, would it be the responsibility of a school to uphold these values?

Ok yes. See my Volitiare quote
Yeah yeah, just admit you're being contradictory and be done with it.

:headbang: No, because it is not a forced diffrence.
Yes, forcing girls not to wear bras is a forced difference.

And in terms of feeling comfortable, allowing children, and I state again, children, not adults (who of course should be allowed to any form of undamaging religous expression that they choose) to coexist as equals in an educational setting, could merely reinforce the innate similarities between each other, disparage bullying and racial slurs, whilst allowing full and frank discussion of various disparate codes of belief. If children are dress alike, this surely minimises discomfort...

I'd either suggest uniform - as uniform as it's name suggests, or an utter freedom to dress as the child wishes.

Sure, many women do. I was careful to state that the people I was referring to were under the age of consent. Should we not allow a few years of non-sexualised childhood to people, free from the socio political concerns of adults?
You're talking about removing children from their parents until the age of majority...only in this way could you accomplish that goal.

Now this touches upon the crux of my argument... are parental rights always fundamentally in the best interests of a child's education? If a parent were to be racist, would it be the responsibility of a school to uphold these values?

It is very scary to me to make the gov. rather than parents responible for the moral training of children. It is a complete denial of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. If a parent is teaching a child something illegal, and to behave in a way that actively violates the rights of other students, teachers have a responsibility to not allow that behavior to continue. If it is merely an expression of idea or religion, the teacher should have no opinion.

And in terms of feeling comfortable, allowing children, and I state again, children, not adults (who of course should be allowed to any form of undamaging religous expression that they choose) to coexist as equals in an educational setting, could merely reinforce the innate similarities between each other, disparage bullying and racial slurs, whilst allowing full and frank discussion of various disparate codes of belief. If children are dress alike, this surely minimises discomfort...

Of course, it *increases* discomfort later on in life. School is a place for children to learn and one of the lessons they should learn is that people *are* different.

:headbang:
Yes, forcing girls not to wear bras is a forced difference.

No, what I mean is that girls needing a bra is a forced on them biologicaly where as wearing a headwear piece is not

You're talking about removing children from their parents until the age of majority...only in this way could you accomplish that goal.
No I'm not, I'm suggesting that schools have an important part to play, in providing a bastion for freedom of exploration, a temporal oasis if you will, from which kids return every day. Not a boot camp.

Of course, it *increases* discomfort later on in life. School is a place for children to learn and one of the lessons they should learn is that people *are* different.
People are not different in the way that I think you are suggesting. Customs are, habits are, religions are, and all should be taught in a frank and open manner. People, on the other hand, should be entitled to be treated as equals.

No I'm not, I'm suggesting that schools have an important part to play, in providing a bastion for freedom of exploration, a temporal oasis if you will, from which kids return every day. Not a boot camp.
I know, I applaud the sentiment, I just don't see how it is workeable in the public system. In a private one...more possible.

People are not different in the way that I think you are suggesting. Customs are, habits are, religions are, and all should be taught in a frank and open manner. People, on the other hand, should be entitled to be treated as equals.
Don't make assumptions about her statements.

Edit: Or I shall pelt you with fruit, as I have forgone the selling of cyber sheep in favour of cyber fruit!

I know, I applaud the sentiment, I just don't see how it is workeable in the public system. In a private one...more possible.
I'm no educator myself, and sure, I've got no idea how to make the fairytale a reality. But isn't that part of what NS is all about (sorry for the starry eyed sentimentality... I'm new around here)

People are not different in the way that I think you are suggesting. Customs are, habits are, religions are, and all should be taught in a frank and open manner. People, on the other hand, should be entitled to be treated as equals.
+1, that is what i tried to say in my posts. That is the logic used here in France to ban religious and political distinctions from the school.

I'm no educator myself, and sure, I've got no idea how to make the fairytale a reality. But isn't that part of what NS is all about (sorry for the starry eyed sentimentality... I'm new around here)
Yeah, you'll get jaded soon enough:).

Don't make assumptions about her statements.

Edit: Or I shall pelt you with fruit, as I have forgone the selling of cyber sheep in favour of cyber fruit!
Her suggestion was that people were not equal. I take issue with the core sentiment.

No, what I mean is that girls needing a bra is a forced on them biologicaly where as wearing a headwear piece is not

No, it isn't. There is no biological reason why a woman *has* to wear a bra. The only time when a woman may "need" a bra is during exercise. Other than that, it is simply a matter of modesty. In fact, these days, I go without one whenever I can get away with it.

Her suggestion was that people were not equal. I take issue with the core sentiment.
No, she explicitly said, people are different. Not inequal, different. I am not the same as you.

Edit: I apologise for speaking for you Dem...it really isn't my place.

People are not different in the way that I think you are suggesting. Customs are, habits are, religions are, and all should be taught in a frank and open manner. People, on the other hand, should be entitled to be treated as equals.

Forcing people to conform is not treating people as equals. It is treating those with different viewpoints as "wrong".

No, it isn't. There is no biological reason why a woman *has* to wear a bra. In fact, these days, I go without one whenever I can get away with it.

I used need as a word of convience. My point is that demanding that no one can wear a bra is an obviously targeted at women only where as a rule demanding no headwear does not.

+1, that is what i tried to say in my posts. That is the logic used here in France to ban religious and political distinctions from the school.

Forcing a viewpoint on someone is not enforcing equality - it is, in fact, enforcing the viewpoint that you are only equal if you conform exactly to whatever the government says.

I used need as a word of convience. My point is that demanding that no one can wear a bra is an obviously targeted at women only where as a rule demanding no headwear does not.

(a) Many rules against headwear have been made or enforced specifically to target Muslims.

(b) The target does not matter here. We are talking about banning a particular article of clothing, *any* article of clothing. Would you support a ban on shirts?

Edit: What about a ban on all undergarments. A school that forced everyone to go commando. Would you support that?

Declaring muslim costume contrary to a school's dress code racist, depends on how contrary the muslim costume violates the school's dress code.

After skimming through the first page of this thread, muslims as a rule do not dress in a provocative manner. Western students would do well, by taking a cue from their Eastern classmates. ;)

I used need as a word of convience. My point is that demanding that no one can wear a bra is an obviously targeted at women only where as a rule demanding no headwear does not.

Meanwhile, a woman who wears a headscarf wears it for *exactly* the same reason that most women wear bras - for modesty.

Forcing people to conform is not treating people as equals. It is treating those with different viewpoints as "wrong".
As a knee jerk thing, I share your aversion to conformity. Many of the more worrysome aspects of contemporary society, as I see them, can be laid at the door of conformity (bear in mind, I still haven't made up my mind which way to vote on this issue). Do you not see the possibility, however, that it could be the part of an education system to provide the freedom to a child to form a code of beliefs, at least in part, away from the controlling influence of their patriarchal forebears?

(a) Many rules against headwear have been made or enforced specifically to target Muslims.

(b) The target does not matter here. We are talking about banning a particular article of clothing, *any* article of clothing. Would you support a ban on shirts?

A) While that may or may not be true, if it targets all head wear/all religious symbols it is not raceist. Also if the school says "Uniform specified only" and not "No X, Y, or Z" then its hardly raceist. Its just a case of "That doesnt conform to school rules"

B) No. But there is a simple reason for that. Shirts are the primary and simplest of torso garmentry. Without it you would be very cold. And also it is banning a piece of clothing in a specific enviroment because of specific rules.

Meanwhile, a woman who wears a headscarf wears it for *exactly* the same reason that most women wear bras - for modesty.

And? I am not intersted in the level of modesty or whatever the reason is. I am asking does the school have the right to demand a strict adheriance to a uniform code, regardless of religion. I say yes.

A) While that may or may not be true, if it targets all head wear/all religious symbols it is not raceist. Also if the school says "Uniform specified only" and not "No X, Y, or Z" then its hardly raceist. Its just a case of "That doesnt conform to school rules"

B) No. But there is a simple reason for that. Shirts are the primary and simplest of torso garmentry. Without it you would be very cold. And also it is banning a piece of clothing in a specific enviroment because of specific rules.

I think looking at this on the basis of racism is a misnomer. It is more about freedom of speech and free exersize of religion. Clearly not all Muslim's belong to any one given race.

And? I am not intersted in the level of modesty or whatever the reason is. I am asking does the school have the right to demand a strict adheriance to a uniform code, regardless of religion. I say yes.

So you're willing to throw out the 1st Ammendent to the Constitution then?

So you're willing to throw out the 1st Ammendent to the Constitution then?

I'm not American so it makes little diffence to me. If a religon demands you to break the law should the religion be excused?