NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's another one for the WTF file. One wonders if he would have been suspended for wearing an anti-McCain shirt. So, is this a violation of the First Amendment or do schools have the right to ban political expression? If they do have that right, do they have the right to be selective in what expressions they ban?

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/09/25/boy-suspended-over-anti-obama-tshirt/?icid=200100397x1210256298x1200643334

(For the record. I'm not anti-Obama, I'm anti-Palin)

I'm on the fence onthis one. On one hand, freedom of expression and all that jazz. On the other, the t-shirt would probably have caused a distruption in class, and thus is unsuitable for school. Hmmm, difficult one.

Being English, all I can say is meh. :p

I'm on the fence onthis one. On one hand, freedom of expression and all that jazz. On the other, the t-shirt would probably have caused a distruption in class, and thus is unsuitable for school. Hmmm, difficult one.

I would agree with this:
The kid has every right to wear it until it causes a disruption, at which point (but not one second before), the school can ask the student to change/cover his shirt (or leave, or sit in the office, or what have you).

This isn't a case of a school suspending a student becuase he expressed a political opinion, in verbal or T-shirt form.

He was obviously suspended as the graphic on the shirt was distracting and disruptive.

If he wanted to make a political statement, he should have been more subtle, like a pin badge or something. Then there probably wouldn't have been a problem.

This isn't a case of a school suspending a student becuase he expressed a political opinion, in verbal or T-shirt form.

He was obviously suspended as the graphic on the shirt was distracting and disruptive.

If he wanted to make a political statement, he should have been more subtle, like a pin badge or something. Then there probably wouldn't have been a problem.

So you think someone wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt would have been treated the same?

Unless the school can point to actual disruption, I would say that it isn't clear at all that he was suspended because it was. At best, he was suspended because someone thought it might possibly maybe be disruptive.

I don't see how this t-shirt was any more inherently disruptive than, say, black armbands.

Here's another one for the WTF file. One wonders if he would have been suspended for wearing an anti-McCain shirt. So, is this a violation of the First Amendment or do schools have the right to ban political expression? If they do have that right, do they have the right to be selective in what expressions they ban?

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/09/25/boy-suspended-over-anti-obama-tshirt/?icid=200100397x1210256298x1200643334

(For the record. I'm not anti-Obama, I'm anti-Palin)
It's inflammatory. It's in bad taste. It doesn't belong in public schools.

So you think someone wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt would have been treated the same?

Unless the school can point to actual disruption, I would say that it isn't clear at all that he was suspended because it was. At best, he was suspended because someone thought it might possibly maybe be disruptive.

I don't see how this t-shirt was any more inherently disruptive than, say, black armbands.

I should think so, if the graphic in question was partisan enough, like this one. I don't know if a suspension was completely appropriate in reaction, but if I were a teacher, I'd like to keep political tension out of my classroom.

Whenever these questions about First Amendment issues comes up, I like to use this exaggerated comparison.

It's like a guy voicing his opinions to you, but he's shouting in your ear.

It's inflammatory. It's in bad taste. It doesn't belong in public schools.

*Reels in surprise*

This must be the second time in two days I've found something I can agree on with you.

I should think so, if the graphic in question was partisan enough, like this one. I don't know if a suspension was completely appropriate in reaction, but if I were a teacher, I'd like to keep political tension out of my classroom.

Whenever these questions about First Amendment issues comes up, I like to use this exaggerated comparison.

It's like a guy voicing his opinions to you, but he's shouting in your ear.

Wearing a t-shirt is like shouting?

Damn. I wonder why no one has asked me to be quieter when I wear my Obama t-shirt?

Here's another one for the WTF file. One wonders if he would have been suspended for wearing an anti-McCain shirt.

Oh please, enough of this EBIL LIBERAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!! shit.

Well the kid was given a choice - he chose suspension over changing his shirt or turning it inside out.

Things like this happening over and over again in schools across the country, make me think that uniforms are the best way to go just to avoid headaches of all sorts.

*Reels in surprise*

This must be the second time in two days I've found something I can agree on with you.
You must be discovering common sense. Or single malt scotch... The latter has a much more pleasant effect.

Here's another one for the WTF file. One wonders if he would have been suspended for wearing an anti-McCain shirt. So, is this a violation of the First Amendment or do schools have the right to ban political expression? If they do have that right, do they have the right to be selective in what expressions they ban?

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/09/25/boy-suspended-over-anti-obama-tshirt/?icid=200100397x1210256298x1200643334

(For the record. I'm not anti-Obama, I'm anti-Palin)

We are rather short on facts here. IIRC the boy was not suspended just for wearing the shirt, but for refusing to turn it inside out or remove it.

Given what little we know, this does seem to be a violation of the First Amendment.

Schools do not have a right to ban political expression or to be selective in what expressions they ban. Schools do have the right to prevent disruption, however.

That line is not always easy to draw. But I see no fact here that support the conclusion the t-shirt was necessarily disruptive.

FWIW, the most relevant cases that I can think of off the top of my head, are Tinker v. Des Moines (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=503), 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Morse v. Frederick (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-278.html), 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007). Here (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/) and here (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278/) are respective Oyez summaries of those cases.

Oh please, enough of this EBIL LIBERAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!! shit.

I remember the same thing being said and done when a boy wore a dress to the prom, a girl wore jewery at school, kids wearing 'gang colors', etc...

the rationalizing is the same. the article MIGHT cause a distracton... Violation of First Amendment rights... ebil Liberal/Neocon schoools...

but the point is the same. all this is argument for school uniforms. no disruptive clothing, no disruptive jewery, nothing they can wear will cause a disruption.

Wearing a t-shirt is like shouting?

Damn. I wonder why no one has asked me to be quieter when I wear my Obama t-shirt?

If your particular Pro-Obama T-shirt accuses McCain of being a war criminal or a terrorist or something equally partisan and obviously provocative, and you show it off in a decidedly non-politicized environment, and people complain, then yeah, I'd suggest turning the volume down out of respect.

Daxx Dalton's dad says the fifth-grader was given the choice of changing his shirt, turning it inside out or being suspended -- and he chose suspension, according to a Fox News affiliate in Colorado

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-suspended-over-anti-obama-shirt/185646

We are rather short on facts here. IIRC the boy was not suspended just for wearing the shirt, but for refusing to turn it inside out or remove it.

Given what little we know, this does seem to be a violation of the First Amendment.

Schools do not have a right to ban political expression or to be selective in what expressions they ban. Schools do have the right to prevent disruption, however.

That line is not always easy to draw. But I see no fact here that support the conclusion the t-shirt was necessarily disruptive.

Wasn't it Scalia who said students didn't have rights? I disagree, but still. Uniforms, solve this problem rapidly.

You must be discovering common sense. Or single malt scotch... The latter has a much more pleasant effect.

Naw. I'm still practically teetotal, humanitarian, socialist (in American terms) and loving it.

...

Okay I lied. I'm not teetotal. I recently discovered a taste for mixed alcohol shots.

Wasn't it Scalia who said students didn't have rights? I disagree, but still. Uniforms, solve this problem rapidly.

Indeed. I've always supported the wearing of uniform in schools.

Wasn't it Scalia who said students didn't have rights? I disagree, but still. Uniforms, solve this problem rapidly.

It was Justice Thomas in his concurrence in Morse v. Frederick that said that students have no rights in schools.

It was Justice Thomas in his concurrence in Morse v. Frederick that said that students have no rights in schools.

Really? So if I were to go into a Christian private school, and I was a Muslim, they'd have a right to force me to convert?

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the Supreme Court clearly stated that students do have a right to free speech. However a recent case (the "Bong hits for Jesus" case) Morse v. Frederick stated that such speech can not impair the fundamental purpose of the school's educational mission, namely, education.

The difference between Tinker and Morse is twofold. First, the Court found in Tinker the armbands were designed to engage in discussion and thought about Vietnam, a legitimate area of discussion, whereas "Bong Hits for Jesus" was advocating illegal drug use. The Court found that a school had a legitimate interest in dissuading illegal drug use, but less a compelling reason to dissuade discussion about the war.

Secondly they found that while black armbands were not inherently disruptive, a giant sign, with an intentionally cryptic message, designed for the very purpose of disrupting (why create a big banner if not to draw attention to that banner, and away from the school event?)

So where does this fall in between. Well it's not advocating illegality, so that difference between the two fails. The main question, is it disruptive enough? IS this more like a fairly inconspicuous arm band, or a large and cryptic banner?

I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

It was Justice Thomas in his concurrence in Morse v. Frederick that said that students have no rights in schools.

Ah well, they all blur together. Better solution, Nudity!

Really? So if I were to go into a Christian private school

nope nope nope, stop right there.

Ah well, they all blur together. Better solution, Nudity!

I'd think Thomas would be the ONE guy on the Court you could tell apart from the rest.

My first thought is 'where can I get one of those T-shirts' followed quickly by the realization that I'm disinclined to spend money on something that will be irrelevant(one way or the other)fairly quickly. I like clothing that lasts for years, so I don't have to go shopping.

My first thought is 'where can I get one of those T-shirts' followed quickly by the realization that I'm disinclined to spend money on something that will be irrelevant(one way or the other)fairly quickly. I like clothing that lasts for years, so I don't have to go shopping.

why would it be irrelevant? I wear shirts that still say Monrole for president.

Actually, I think it's the equating Obama with terrorism that did it. To show the filpside,
if there were a shirt saying that McCain used flamethrowers on little Vietnamese kids during the war, I'd probably ask the kid's parent to come with a change of shirt... or ask the kid to turn his shirt inside out/wear a school t-shirt till he gets home.... suspending seems a bit much to me.

This may or may not be the case here, but some schools have banned ALL shirts with words on them... if that's the case then this is in line with school policy (though still a bit over the top).

apparently the kids sister had an anti-Obama shirt too but she wasn't asked to change nor was she suspended.

I suspect it wasn't as inflammatory and therefore didn't cause disruptions like the boys did (arguments on the playground)

Really? So if I were to go into a Christian private school, and I was a Muslim, they'd have a right to force me to convert?
Don't be ridiculous. They could, however, require you to attend the religious instruction classes just like every other student in the school.

Don't be ridiculous. They could, however, require you to attend the religious instruction classes just like every other student in the school.

Psst, Kat, I was nitpicking her choice of words.

Really? So if I were to go into a Christian private school, and I was a Muslim, they'd have a right to force me to convert?

Um.... Yes, sort of. A private school doesn't have to obey the First Amendment, which only applies to state action.

So a Christian private school can teach Christianity. Not to get all lawyery on you, but, as to "right to force [you] to convert," depends on what you mean by "right" and "force." Otherwise, I think I've already answered your question.

As for Justice Thomas's concurrence (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278#concurrence1) in Morse, I oversimplified a bit, but not by much. He said he would overturn the whole line of free speech cases involving students, including Tinker and said flat out that students have no right to free speech in public schools. As to other rights, like free exercise of religion, who knows what Thomas might say-- his concurrence is pretty disturbing to read. Anyone who thinks they want more Justices like Scalia and Thomas should read that concurrence first.

Psst, Kat, I was nitpicking her choice of words.

Psst. I'm a "he."

And your nit-pick failed miserably.

all this is argument for school uniforms. no disruptive clothing, no disruptive jewery, nothing they can wear will cause a disruption.
*Remembers his junior high school students and the many different ways kids tweaked their uniforms* Uh...

how did they tweak their uniforms? could they write inflammatory language on them? Did kids get in fights and whatnot over what each other was wearing? Were there ways in which you could tell what gang someone belonged to by the way they wore their socks?

I'm genuinely curious how wearing uniforms went wrong and if it matched the level of problems non-uniform schools had with student clothing.

I remember the same thing being said and done when a boy wore a dress to the prom, a girl wore jewery at school, kids wearing 'gang colors', etc...

the rationalizing is the same. the article MIGHT cause a distracton... Violation of First Amendment rights... ebil Liberal/Neocon schoools...

but the point is the same. all this is argument for school uniforms. no disruptive clothing, no disruptive jewery, nothing they can wear will cause a disruption.

First, whether something MIGHT cause a distraction is hardly good grounds for banning it.

Second, what exactly is disruptive clothing?

Third, are school uniforms a bit of an overreaction? What is wrong with allowing students a little freedom of expression?

how did they tweak their uniforms? could they write inflammatory language on them? Did kids get in fights and whatnot over what each other was wearing? Were there ways in which you could tell what gang someone belonged to by the way they wore their socks?

I'm genuinely curious how wearing uniforms went wrong and if it matched the level of problems non-uniform schools had with student clothing.
Oh any number of ways, how the socks were worn, what kinds of socks, buttons and badges on backs and on the jackets. How it was buttoned, how many buttons did it have left (Cutting buttons off had special meaning), for the boys, how was the tie done, was it a clip on, was it a real tie? For the girls, how high did they hike their skirt. I saw just about as much variation in uniforms as I did back at home with non-uniformed students.

And yes, you COULD tell who belonged to what group and there WERE fights when one student would attempt to copy what another group felt was its modifications. The one I remember was a couple of 9th grade boys took exception to a 7th grader having an actual tie instead of a clip on one. Only 9th graders were allowed a real tie that could be loosened.

First, whether something MIGHT cause a distraction is hardly good grounds for banning it.
So... just because kids wearing gang colors MIGHT be disruptive, that's not a good reason for the banning of gang colors and symbols in school? If a kid comes in wearing a t-shirt that says, "Blacks look better hanging from trees" a teacher can't ban it because it might be disruptive?

So... just because kids wearing gang colors MIGHT be disruptive, that's not a good reason for the banning of gang colors and symbols in school? If a kid comes in wearing a t-shirt that says, "Blacks look better hanging from trees" a teacher can't ban it because it might be disruptive?

Depends. Are you really saying anything that someone else might find offensive = MIGHT be disruptive = should be banned?

Or are you thinking of scenarios where clothing could actually be disruptive? (That question of mine you did come up with a good answer to.)

EDIT: I agree with the Court in Tinker when it held that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school." Id., at 513. (In the interests of full disclosure, I am NOT claiming that is the standard the Court has applied in subsequent cases.)

Oh any number of ways, how the socks were worn, what kinds of socks, buttons and badges on backs and on the jackets. How it was buttoned, how many buttons did it have left (Cutting buttons off had special meaning), for the boys, how was the tie done, was it a clip on, was it a real tie? For the girls, how high did they hike their skirt. I saw just about as much variation in uniforms as I did back at home with non-uniformed students.

And yes, you COULD tell who belonged to what group and there WERE fights when one student would attempt to copy what another group felt was its modifications. The one I remember was a couple of 9th grade boys took exception to a 7th grader having an actual tie instead of a clip on one. Only 9th graders were allowed a real tie that could be loosened.

Interesting. Wouldn't banning modifications be the best course then? I mean, if that is the point of the uniforms anyway.

I remember the same thing being said and done when a boy wore a dress to the prom, a girl wore jewery at school, kids wearing 'gang colors', etc...

the rationalizing is the same. the article MIGHT cause a distracton... Violation of First Amendment rights... ebil Liberal/Neocon schoools...

but the point is the same. all this is argument for school uniforms. no disruptive clothing, no disruptive jewery, nothing they can wear will cause a disruption.

Schools violating students rights to free expression is an argument to more blatantly violate students rights to free expression? How so?

Psst, Kat, I was nitpicking her choice of words.

1) Cat Tribes is a he, not a she

2) He was not stating his opinion, but rather the opinion of Justice Thomas, as he clearly explained. And as far as his description of Thomas' position, he is spot on

3) By bringing the discussion towards a private school, you already demonstrate you know nothing about constitutional jurisprudence, because not only would Thomas agree that a child has no constitutional liberties vis-a-vis a private school, but so would the other 8 justices.

Private entities are not obligated to follow constitutional limitations on the government, absent excessive entanglement.

I remember reading about it from another source and the headteacher was quoted as saying it had caused a disruption, but I can't remember where, so you'll just have to trust me.:wink:

His t-shirt slogan was fair enough. Irritiatingly conservative though! It may make his school community think about politics a little. But it's really a good argument for school uniforms isn't it?

Hang on, I don't think that photo is of the actual shirt, iirc then the shirt was homemade with the slogan "Obama is a terrorist's best friend" or something.

EDIT:

Fox is actually more reliable than someone

Fox (with correct picture) (http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=3A48EFB4789585E91DE739D982A20950?contentId=7490636&version=12&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1)


Elementary Student Suspended For Anti-Obama Shirt

AURORA (MyFOXColorado.com) - An 11-year-old in Aurora says his first amendment rights are being trampled after he was suspended for wearing a homemade shirt that reads "Obama is a terrorist's best friend."

The sixth grader at Aurora Frontier K-8 School wore it on a day when students were asked to wear red, white and blue to show their patriotism.

The boy's father Dann Dalton describes himself as a "proud conservative" who has taken part in some controversial anti-abortion protests. Dalton says the school made a major mistake by suspending his son for wearing the shirt.

"It's the public school system," Dalton says. "Let's be honest, it's full of liberal loons."

According the the boy's father, the school district told the student, Daxx Dalton, that he had the choice of changing his shirt, turning his shirt inside out or being suspended.

Daxx chose suspension.

"They're taking away my right of freedom of speech," he says. "If I have the right to wear this shirt I'm going to use it. And if the only way to use it is get suspended, then I'm going to get suspended."

Daxx's dad agrees with him and is encouraging his son to stand his ground. "The facts are his rights were violated. Period."

Aurora Public Schools Superintendent John Barry says the suspension was not because Daxx Dalton wore a shirt with a political message. It was the result of a dispute that began on the playground before school started that spilled into a math class.

He says no student is allowed to wear anything that becomes a distraction in the learning environment, regardless of the political message. Administrators say in this case, the shirt caused a distraction.

Barry says Daxx's sister also wore an anti-Obama shirt to class that day. She was not suspended. He also says the district "Respects a student's right to free speech, such as the right to wear specific clothing," but administrators say they review any situation that interrupts the learning environment.

Paperwork submitted by the school district says Daxx Dalton was not suspended for wearing the shirt, but for willful disobedience and defiance.

The boy's father says he intends to pursue a lawsuit against the district.
emphasis mine

how did they tweak their uniforms? could they write inflammatory language on them? Did kids get in fights and whatnot over what each other was wearing? Were there ways in which you could tell what gang someone belonged to by the way they wore their socks?

The way they wear their tie or tie their shoelaces is more common.

First, whether something MIGHT cause a distraction is hardly good grounds for banning it.

Second, what exactly is disruptive clothing?

It has the same definition as obscenity.

1) Cat Tribes is a he, not a she

edit: Never mind, misread the post of CM's that was being quoted.

The way they wear their tie or tie their shoelaces is more common.

so then the only option is to ban school altogether

I remember the same thing being said and done when a boy wore a dress to the prom, a girl wore jewery at school, kids wearing 'gang colors', etc...

the rationalizing is the same. the article MIGHT cause a distracton... Violation of First Amendment rights... ebil Liberal/Neocon schoools...

but the point is the same. all this is argument for school uniforms. no disruptive clothing, no disruptive jewery, nothing they can wear will cause a disruption.

I'm against school uniforms. I'd rather have the disruptions.

At the school I went to, nobody got that pissed off over a T-shirt, at least none of the students. If someone's wearing a political shirt that offends you, well, you probably already hated that dude anyway.

why would it be irrelevant? I wear shirts that still say Monrole for president.

For the same reason chocolate bunnies are 5 for a dollar the Monday after Easter. Either your guy has won, and urging people to vote for him via T-shirt after the election is pointless, or your guy has lost, and urging people to vote for him via T-shirt is...wait for it kids...pointless.

I'm against school uniforms. I'd rather have the disruptions.

At the school I went to, nobody got that pissed off over a T-shirt, at least none of the students. If someone's wearing a political shirt that offends you, well, you probably already hated that dude anyway.
Ours too. no uniforms and no disruptions. Not even a "Girl, where did you get that shirt/blouse/dress/etc.."

For the same reason chocolate bunnies are 5 for a dollar the Monday after Easter. Either your guy has won, and urging people to vote for him via T-shirt after the election is pointless, or your guy has lost, and urging people to vote for him via T-shirt is...wait for it kids...pointless.
yep... many times I walked to my class and saw a shirt and said "damn, that shirt made a very good point." :tongue:

Ours too. no uniforms and no disruptions. Not even a "Girl, where did you get that shirt/blouse/dress/etc.."


One of my friends often wore shirts with language or phrases some might think obscene, often coupled with some rather disturbing graphics. However only the vice principals and principal ever really made a fuss about it. All the other students seemed to have a "hmmm, well that's interesting," opinion about it that they'd keep to themselves and then not give it a second thought.

Classrooms are a lot harder to disrupt than school authorities would often have you believe. At least through what you're wearing. If you came in nude, yes, there would probably be a disruption. But what your shirt says or jewelry or whatever is probably not going to send the classroom into a panic. That's what always bugs me about these "it will cause a disruption" excuses to ban shirts and such that the school administration doesn't like. I was a high school student not too long ago. I know what's going to disrupt a class, and T-shirts are not it.

I was a high school student not too long ago. I know what's going to disrupt a class, and T-shirts are not it.
*nods*
I was one... umm... I'll leave it as "a while ago" and yes, we didn't have this "it's going to cause a disruption" shit. the Faculty waited till the disruption started then they put an end to it.

Depends. Are you really saying anything that someone else might find offensive = MIGHT be disruptive = should be banned?

Or are you thinking of scenarios where clothing could actually be disruptive? (That question of mine you did come up with a good answer to.)

EDIT: I agree with the Court in Tinker when it held that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school." Id., at 513. (In the interests of full disclosure, I am NOT claiming that is the standard the Court has applied in subsequent cases.)
Do you want the teacher answer or the personal answer?

Both as a teacher and personally, I don't particularly CARE if someone is offended, and as a teacher, I really want my students to be offended because it leads to such wonderful discussions that draw students out of their shells. That said, yes, there are times where clothing can go past discussions into actual flying fists as the person taking offense goes right into taking the offensive. So, as a teacher, I'm a bit apt to be more strict on what I think might lead to fist fights in the halls than I would as a private person and ask my student to wear the shirt inside out for the day or call home for a change of clothing due to my feeling that my duty of keeping my kids safe from harm supersedes my duty to protect their constitutional rights. Especially as kids due tend to use physical means to express their displeasure at something more often.

But as an aside, given that this student chose suspension, it sounds like he self-martyred himself and is now attempting to make hay for it.

Christ. People need to stop with this "Clothing can cause fights!"

I wasnt in High School too long ago, and let me tell you, Ive NEVER seen a fight over what someone was wearing, and I went to a school that allegidly had a "gang problem" (whether it really existed or was just a stigma the rest of the county attatched to our school because we had a large latino population is up for debate).

Interesting. Wouldn't banning modifications be the best course then? I mean, if that is the point of the uniforms anyway.
Given the many, many, many ways the kids pulled off those modifications, you'd have a dress code hundreds of lines long and have to pull off uniform inspections every single day, and they'd STILL find a way around it. Students are very, very creative when it comes to violating the rules.

Christ. People need to stop with this "Clothing can cause fights!"

I wasnt in High School too long ago, and let me tell you, Ive NEVER seen a fight over what someone was wearing, and I went to a school that allegidly had a "gang problem" (whether it really existed or was just a stigma the rest of the county attatched to our school because we had a large latino population is up for debate).
Really? And a year and a bit ago I was teaching in a school that DID have a fight due to clothing. I think I'll take my experience as a teacher.

Really? And a year and a bit ago I was teaching in a school that DID have a fight due to clothing. I think I'll take my experience as a teacher.

Care to elaberate? Also, dont you teach in Japan? Maybe people just care more there, its cultural maybe?

I am an Obama supporter (for lack of a better option) but I disagree with this shirt not in any way because of that. If it said, McCain/Palin or w/e that is fine, it states the opinion of the wearer, but isn't distracting or incendiary to the school population. Outside of school, wear the shirt anytime.

First, whether something MIGHT cause a distraction is hardly good grounds for banning it.

Second, what exactly is disruptive clothing?

Third, are school uniforms a bit of an overreaction? What is wrong with allowing students a little freedom of expression?

Would the fact children are involved have something to do with it? It would be one thing for an adult to wear an inflammatory t-shirt, but does it involve someone who doesn't have the same rights affect what they can and cannot wear? (I'm not trying to make a point, by the way. I'm actually curious what freedom of speech from children means.)

In relation to the specifics of the shirt, it is inappropriate. Stating your opinion about Obama - Vote No, McCain's the better choice, etc is different to making a false statement about someone else. Think about it like this: if the shirt had inferred the same thing about a student in the school, or a teacher, would you still support the student's right to wear the shirt and express his opinion about that person?

In relation to the specifics of the shirt, it is inappropriate. Stating your opinion about Obama - Vote No, McCain's the better choice, etc is different to making a false statement about someone else. Think about it like this: if the shirt had inferred the same thing about a student in the school, or a teacher, would you still support the student's right to wear the shirt and express his opinion about that person?

Do we apply the same standards of free expression to the subject of private individuals that we apply to the subject of public figures? No, we don't.

Would a t-shirt that said something offensive about a specific member of the community likely cause more disturbance than a political message? Yes, I think so.

So much for your hypothetical.

Do we apply the same standards of free expression to the subject of private individuals that we apply to the subject of public figures? No, we don't.

Would a t-shirt that said something offensive about a specific member of the community likely cause more disturbance than a political message? Yes, I think so.

So much for your hypothetical.

In regards to teachers in a public school they are employed by the state, no? This makes them public figures in my opinion. If a teacher had made comments regarding the motivations of terrorists and a student took this the wrong way, then he is making a statement about that teacher's political views to me. Therefore, if a student is entitled to make statements about a politician making statements he disagrees with, he is entitled to make statements about a teacher he disagrees with.

You stated in this thread that you should not ban clothing because it might be disruptive - only when it becomes disruptive. Therefore, why should a child be banned from making statements about his students', or teachers' political beliefs, regardless of how incorrect or inflammatory the message?

Would the fact children are involved have something to do with it? It would be one thing for an adult to wear an inflammatory t-shirt, but does it involve someone who doesn't have the same rights affect what they can and cannot wear? (I'm not trying to make a point, by the way. I'm actually curious what freedom of speech from children means.)

The long version is this: SCOTUS has said that make clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=393&invol=503&pageno=506), 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). But it has also said that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not considered coextensive with the constitutional rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=478&invol=675&pageno=682), 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986), and that the rights of students "must be 'applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.' " Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=484&invol=260&pageno=266), 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506). Accordingly, in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case (Morse v. Frederick (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278), 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)), the Court held that "that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use" and concluded "that the school officials in [that] case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it."

The short version: is yes it makes a difference that they are minors AND it makes a difference that they are in a public school (although the second cuts both ways to some degree). Exactly where the line between protected free expression and disruptive conduct that can be punished lies isn't always easy to say. But I think we owe it to ourselves and our children to err on the side of the free expression of ideas.

*snip*
Is there a working definition of what "disruptive" means, or is it pretty much a case-by-case decision?

In regards to teachers in a public school they are employed by the state, no? This makes them public figures in my opinion. If a teacher had made comments regarding the motivations of terrorists and a student took this the wrong way, then he is making a statement about that teacher's political views to me. Therefore, if a student is entitled to make statements about a politician making statements he disagrees with, he is entitled to make statements about a teacher he disagrees with.

You stated in this thread that you should not ban clothing because it might be disruptive - only when it becomes disruptive. Therefore, why should a child be banned from making statements about his students', or teachers' political beliefs, regardless of how incorrect or inflammatory the message?

*sigh*

First, I took your hypothetical seriously, now you appear to be twisting it to justify wearing a shirt that you originally implied should be banned.

Second, I didn't say something couldn't be banned until it actually caused a disturbance, I said was I agree with SCOTUS case that said "student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.'" That is different from banning everything that MIGHT cause SOME disturbance because SOMEONE MIGHT find it OFFENSIVE.

Third, let me explain a bit about the laws of defamation, which is to what I was referring. The short explanation is that it is much hard to sue someone for defamation if their statement was about a public figure, BUT a school teacher would not qualify as a public figure.

For the long answer, I'll borrow this from the interweb:

Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

...

ll. Defenses to Defamation
...

B. The First Amendment

1. Public Officials/Public Figures: Actual Malice must be proven.
The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.

2. Matter of Public Concern: Actual Malice must be proven.
In cases where the media defendant is treating an issue of public concern, the First Amendment also requires proof of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 349-50 (1974). See also Hepps, 475 U.S. at 775 (In non-public concern, non-public plaintiff defamation case, First Amendment does not bar application of mere negligence standard for defamation); Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring).

3. Matter of Public Concern: Plaintiff Must Prove Statement is False.
Proof of falsity required when media defendant addresses topic of public concern; regardless of public/private status of plaintiff. Hepps, 475 U.S. at 775-76.

4. Actual Malice must be Shown by "Convincing Clarity."
Where the plaintiff is a public official, he must prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth with "clear and convincing proof". New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 286 (1964); Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342; Hepps, 475 U.S. at 773.

5. Falsity May Have to Shown by "Convincing Clarity."
Public figure plaintiffs may have to prove falsity by "clear and convincing evidence" as protected under New York Times v. Sullivan. Sharon v. Time, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 538, 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Firestone v. Time Inc., 460 F.2d 712, 722 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 875 (Bell, J., specially concurring).

6. Who is a Public Official or Public Figure?
Public Official. Governmental policy-makers are public officials, while public employees generally are not public officials. The Minnesota Supreme Court has laid out a test to determine who is, and is not, a public official:
(1) whether plaintiff performs governmental duties directly related to the public interest;
(2) whether plaintiff holds a position to influence significantly the resolution of public issues; and
(3) whether the plaintiff has, or appears to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs.

Britton v. Koep, 470 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Minn. 1991). In Britton, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a public roads department supervisor was not a public official, and did not have to prove actual malice.

Public Figure. A "public figure" is a person who is publicly prominent, so much so that discussion or commentary about that person amounts to a "public concern." However, such persons are not necessarily public figures for any purpose: status as a public figure may only extend to the particular area in which they are publicly prominent. Examples: Michael Jordan or Donald Trump. The extent of a person's status as a public figure will be subject to extensive litigation in each case.

The U.S. Supreme has established some guidelines on who constitutes a public figure:
(1) Involuntary Public Figure: become public figure through no purposeful action of their own, including those who have become especially prominent in the affairs of society;
(2) Always Public Figures: those who occupy position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes;
(3) Public Figures on Specific Issues: "those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).


Linky (http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html)

The long version is this: SCOTUS has said that make clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=393&invol=503&pageno=506), 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). But it has also said that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not considered coextensive with the constitutional rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=478&invol=675&pageno=682), 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986), and that the rights of students "must be 'applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.' " Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=484&invol=260&pageno=266), 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506). Accordingly, in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case (Morse v. Frederick (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278), 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)), the Court held that "that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use" and concluded "that the school officials in [that] case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it."

The short version: is yes it makes a difference that they are minors AND it makes a difference that they are in a public school (although the second cuts both ways to some degree). Exactly where the line between protected free expression and disruptive conduct that can be punished lies isn't always easy to say. But I think we owe it to ourselves and our children to err on the side of the free expression of ideas.

Wow, Tinker and Morse. Gee, Tribes, this all sounds familiar
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14056082&postcount=21)

OK, admittedly you usually beat me, so I gloat when I can. :tongue:

Care to elaberate? Also, dont you teach in Japan? Maybe people just care more there, its cultural maybe?
As stated, a group of 9th grade boys took exception to a 7th grader having a full fledged tie, not a clip on as only 9th graders were supposed to have the full ties. They made their point by pulling the boy off, stealing his tie, and hitting him a number of times.

And yes, I do teach in Japan, but that doesn't alter the fact that apparently there WAS something going on in this case and that there have been clothing related issues in other schools in the past.

*sigh*

First, I took your hypothetical seriously, now you appear to be twisting it to justify wearing a shirt that you originally implied should be banned.

No that's not what I am saying. I am saying that the shirt the student wore made an intentionally inflammatory statement that if said about say a teacher in the school, would be considered inappropriate. The fact that it is about Obama is irrelevant to the fact that the statements in the shirt are as inflammatory and wrong whether they are about Obama or about a teacher in the school.

Second, I didn't say something couldn't be banned until it actually caused a disturbance, I said was I agree with SCOTUS case that said "student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.'" That is different from banning everything that MIGHT cause SOME disturbance because SOMEONE MIGHT find it OFFENSIVE.

And as I said, there are plenty of ways to state your political beliefs that are not specifically designed to inflame and offend. John McCain is a better choice for president or Obama No or any of these similar sorts of statements - fine. Equating Obama to a terrorist - deliberately designed to inflame and cause offence or disruption. Particularly since the shirt was home-made. You think the kid made the shirt simply to state his political beliefs? He made it to show-off, to inflame people and to cause a disruption.

Third, let me explain a bit about the laws of defamation, which is to what I was referring. The short explanation is that it is much hard to sue someone for defamation if their statement was about a public figure, BUT a school teacher would not qualify as a public figure.




But if the teacher made statements that would support this view, then why would it be wrong for the student to make a shirt and wear it to school expressing his opinion about their teacher's view?

so then the only option is to ban school altogether

Or clothing. But recommending children go to school naked is seen as pervy for some reason.

Do you want the teacher answer or the personal answer?

Both as a teacher and personally, I don't particularly CARE if someone is offended, and as a teacher, I really want my students to be offended because it leads to such wonderful discussions that draw students out of their shells. That said, yes, there are times where clothing can go past discussions into actual flying fists as the person taking offense goes right into taking the offensive. So, as a teacher, I'm a bit apt to be more strict on what I think might lead to fist fights in the halls than I would as a private person and ask my student to wear the shirt inside out for the day or call home for a change of clothing due to my feeling that my duty of keeping my kids safe from harm supersedes my duty to protect their constitutional rights. Especially as kids due tend to use physical means to express their displeasure at something more often.

Might I recommend punishing the violent children rather than the ones who wear shirts you think might cause a problem?

Equating Obama to a terrorist - deliberately designed to inflame and cause offence or disruption.

I'd love to know where you get "Obama = Terrorist" from "3 out of 4 terrorists agree: Obama '08."

It's a political statement. Anyone with half a brain knows that Republicans have been saying that Obama will not be as tough with National Security as McCain will be. Now, whether or not this is true is debatable. But because the word "terrorists" appears on the same line as the word "Obama" doesn't mean that it's equating Obama to a terrorist.

In any case, it's a political shirt. It's *supposed* to be divisive and carry shock value - that's how bipartisan politics are.

Might I recommend punishing the violent children rather than the ones who wear shirts you think might cause a problem?
How about I try to avoid a riot in the first place, especially as your method has need for the fight to break out before I do something. Under that logic, police shouldn't attempt to keep neo-nazis and counter protesters separated, just wait until the inevitable bloodshed and then start arresting people.

I'd love to know where you get "Obama = Terrorist" from "3 out of 4 terrorists agree: Obama '08."

It's a political statement. Anyone with half a brain knows that Republicans have been saying that Obama will not be as tough with National Security as McCain will be. Now, whether or not this is true is debatable. But because the word "terrorists" appears on the same line as the word "Obama" doesn't mean that it's equating Obama to a terrorist.

In any case, it's a political shirt. It's *supposed* to be divisive and carry shock value - that's how bipartisan politics are.

The original shirt was more specific, if you read the article instead of looking at the pretty pictures. The actual shirt, made by the boy, stated, "Obama: A Terrorist's Best Friend." And equating does not mean is. I never said the shirt said: Obama = Terrorist. I said it equated him to terrorists, ie: regards him as equivalent to being a terrorist.

Making that statement walking down the street is fine. But coming from a teacher's perspective, the kid didn't make the shirt to make a political statement, he made it to get the reaction he got. The whole point of the shirt is to create disruption and conflict, not to make a political statement.

Making that statement walking down the street is fine. But coming from a teacher's perspective, the kid didn't make the shirt to make a political statement, he made it to get the reaction he got. The whole point of the shirt is to create disruption and conflict, not to make a political statement.

I'm not going to debate opinion of the t-shirt with you. We have differing opinions on what it has to say. I accept that.

However, you're being nieve if you think political t-shirts aren't supposed to be divisive and created to disrupt and create conflict. That's the whole idea of having your political ideas on a t-shirt - you create controversy. It's like having the bumper sticker "Buck Fush" on the back of your car. It creates conflict to the point where it makes some people reconsider their positions on certain issues. Just saying Obama '08 or McCain '08 doesn't do that because it doesn't make you consider issues, just candidates.

I'm not going to debate opinion of the t-shirt with you. We have differing opinions on what it has to say. I accept that.

However, you're being nieve if you think political t-shirts aren't supposed to be divisive and created to disrupt and create conflict. That's the whole idea of having your political ideas on a t-shirt - you create controversy. It's like having the bumper sticker "Buck Fush" on the back of your car. It creates conflict to the point where it makes some people reconsider their positions on certain issues. Just saying Obama '08 or McCain '08 doesn't do that because it doesn't make you consider issues, just candidates.


And all I am saying is that if he wanted to express his political beliefs in a school environment, there are less disruptive and inflammatory ways to do it. Teachers have to think about the whole class, and the fact that some students might take exception to those statements and might cause a disruption. We need to be stricter in schools and more vigilant than in other areas. Student emotions run high, and students can take things the wrong way.

Well the kid was given a choice - he chose suspension over changing his shirt or turning it inside out.

Things like this happening over and over again in schools across the country, make me think that uniforms are the best way to go just to avoid headaches of all sorts.

Fuck that.

Uniforms are fucking lame.

Let kids wear what they want (within reason).

And all I am saying is that if he wanted to express his political beliefs in a school environment, there are less disruptive and inflammatory ways to do it. Teachers have to think about the whole class, and the fact that some students might take exception to those statements and might cause a disruption. We need to be stricter in schools and more vigilant than in other areas. Student emotions run high, and students can take things the wrong way.

So, what, because a few people take things a different way that may be inflammatory to them, it makes something unsafe for school? Politics IS inflammatory. It IS controversial. If politics wasn't either, no one would care about it so much. If you want to teach children about politics, teach them about politics. Don't complain about inflammatory comments when politics is inflammatory and controversial by nature. By doing so, you're not teaching children about reality.

Now, I'm not saying anything goes. There's a line where inflammatory crosses into hate speech, racism and slander, and PC or not, there's a point where no intelligent person can interpret a statement to be anything other. However, from what I've seen, we've yet to reach that.

So, what, because a few people take things a different way that may be inflammatory to them, it makes something unsafe for school? Politics IS inflammatory. It IS controversial. If politics wasn't either, no one would care about it so much. If you want to teach children about politics, teach them about politics. Don't complain about inflammatory comments when politics is inflammatory and controversial by nature. By doing so, you're not teaching children about reality.

A political discussion in a classroom with students saying various things is different to a student deliberately provoking disruption and controversy for the sake of it. Once we allow this, it is a slippery slope to students making a lot of other statements. There's a difference between inflammatory comments, and students in a school setting wearing things designed to create disruption and dissent.

Now, I'm not saying anything goes. There's a line where inflammatory crosses into hate speech, racism and slander, and PC or not, there's a point where no intelligent person can interpret a statement to be anything other. However, from what I've seen, we've yet to reach that.

What you forget is that we are not talking about rational, or theoretically rational adults. We are talking about children, teenagers albeit, but not rational thinking adults. En masse. Who already have clearly defined cliques and clearly defined acceptable behaviours. In a public place, such as a park, or public library or museum, no problem. But that is not the case here.

Fuck that.

Uniforms are fucking lame.

Let kids wear what they want (within reason).

Define "within reason." With the understanding, of course, that "within reason" is different for different people. Who will define "within reason" - the parents - which parents - the political parents, the religious parents, the atheist parents, the pagan parents? The teachers - which teachers, there are as many viewpoints there as there are among the parents. The students ....?

A political discussion in a classroom with students saying various things is different to a student deliberately provoking disruption and controversy for the sake of it. Once we allow this, it is a slippery slope to students making a lot of other statements. There's a difference between inflammatory comments, and students in a school setting wearing things designed to create disruption and dissent.

It's silly for me to repeat this, but if you want kids to have a debate about politics, allow them to bring political t-shirts on campus as long as the statement on the shirt isn't racist, sexist, slander or other. If you don't want kids to have a debate in class, don't allow them to bring political t-shirts OF ANY KIND OR ASSOCIATION onto campus. However, like in most cases, arguments about politics don't randomly burst out in class. If it does and the school has a problem with it, don't just restrict those that feel like they must express their political views in a manner that some people think is wrong - restrict the right for everyone.

What you forget is that we are not talking about rational, or theoretically rational adults. We are talking about children, teenagers albeit, but not rational thinking adults. En masse. Who already have clearly defined cliques and clearly defined acceptable behaviours. In a public place, such as a park, or public library or museum, no problem. But that is not the case here.

The whole point of education is to teach and prepare children about and for the real world, not to sugar coat or hide the truth from them. No matter what administrators say, life isn't fair, few are winners, people do drugs, sex happens, and people have conflicting views about politics. While it's true that there are some things we shouldn't teach our children at certain ages, there comes a point where we must realize children are not innocent underlings but intellectual beings that are forming their own opinions of the world. To limit their discussions about things that they are trying to learn about and become an active part of because we are worried about an interruption of class discussion is foolish.

If they try to say Obama is the devil during science class, tell the students to pipe down and return to the subject matter until that topic is discussed or they are outside of class. If they try to start a discussion about a student wearing a certain shirt, tell the students to pipe down and return to the subject matter until blah blah blah. But don't tell the student to take off or alter his/her shirt because you don't want discussion about it.

It's silly for me to repeat this, but if you want kids to have a debate about politics, allow them to bring political t-shirts on campus as long as the statement on the shirt isn't racist, sexist, slander or other. If you don't want kids to have a debate in class, don't allow them to bring political t-shirts OF ANY KIND OR ASSOCIATION onto campus. However, like in most cases, arguments about politics don't randomly burst out in class. If it does and the school has a problem with it, don't just restrict those that feel like they must express their political views in a manner that some people think is wrong - restrict the right for everyone.



The whole point of education is to teach and prepare children about and for the real world, not to sugar coat or hide the truth from them. No matter what administrators say, life isn't fair, few are winners, people do drugs, sex happens, and people have conflicting views about politics. While it's true that there are some things we shouldn't teach our children at certain ages, there comes a point where we must realize children are not innocent underlings but intellectual beings that are forming their own opinions of the world. To limit their discussions about things that they are trying to learn about and become an active part of because we are worried about an interruption of class discussion is foolish.

If they try to say Obama is the devil during science class, tell the students to pipe down and return to the subject matter until that topic is discussed or they are outside of class. If they try to start a discussion about a student wearing a certain shirt, tell the students to pipe down and return to the subject matter until blah blah blah. But don't tell the student to take off or alter his/her shirt because you don't want discussion about it.



In the real world, political statements via clothing are not usually allowed to be made at work. In the real world, political debate is not something that you have day-today in your workplace, unless that happens to be political in nature. In the real world, people who deliberately cause disruptions at their place of work generally don't work there for very long.

I understand the point that this child was making a political expression. What you are ignoring is that by the type of statement, one can infer that this was not his sole intent. One can infer that his intent was to stir trouble. I am a big advocate of school uniforms for a variety of reasons. While you can still express yourself in a variety of ways, they stop children from deliberately provoking conflict through wearing inappropriate clothing for school or clothing that is likely to create disruptions.

You've clearly never been in a high school classroom as a teacher if you think that telling kids to pipe down when they believe something strongly will work.

It's inflammatory. It's in bad taste. It doesn't belong in public schools.

Bad taste? Doesn't that exclude a sizable selection of middle- and high school clothing? Does that mean we can ban Britney's music from schools, too? Who makes that call?

I agree with you, Myrmi, but the reasoning has to be more sound.

Figures that the ads in this thread would be about t-shirts...

This isn't a case of a school suspending a student becuase he expressed a political opinion, in verbal or T-shirt form.

He was obviously suspended as the graphic on the shirt was distracting and disruptive.

If he wanted to make a political statement, he should have been more subtle, like a pin badge or something. Then there probably wouldn't have been a problem.

The graphic on the T-Shirt was distracting and disruptive, how?

Fuck that.

Uniforms are fucking lame.
Sounds like something the high school kids would say. :rolleyes:

Let kids wear what they want (within reason).

Unless its disrupting the class then I don't think it matters. The whole 'Terrorists support Obama' thing could disrupt a class, unless they all happened to agree.

Fuck that.

Uniforms are fucking lame.

Let kids wear what they want (within reason).

No man, kids should do as they are told to do. Disipline!

Yep yep.

Figures that the ads in this thread would be about t-shirts...
I got "Continuing Teacher Education"

I got "Continuing Teacher Education"

Me too.

I got "Continuing Teacher Education"Me too.
Hm. Now all I'm getting is an ad urging me to break the law by playing Mafia.

Hm. Now all I'm getting is an ad urging me to break the law by playing Mafia.

Umm 'School uniforms', 'Loans for students' etc.. for me.

If your particular Pro-Obama T-shirt accuses McCain of being a war criminal or a terrorist or something equally partisan and obviously provocative, and you show it off in a decidedly non-politicized environment, and people complain, then yeah, I'd suggest turning the volume down out of respect.

So only certain political statements are ok?

And while you might consider it respectful to "turn the volume down", as it were, should that mean that someone must do it?

You've clearly never been in a high school classroom as a teacher if you think that telling kids to pipe down when they believe something strongly will work.

It worked for my high school government teacher. Of course, as a further way to discourage the class from getting carried away and derailed on various political debates, she set aside days for structured debate.

And all I am saying is that if he wanted to express his political beliefs in a school environment, there are less disruptive and inflammatory ways to do it. Teachers have to think about the whole class, and the fact that some students might take exception to those statements and might cause a disruption. We need to be stricter in schools and more vigilant than in other areas. Student emotions run high, and students can take things the wrong way.

And all I am saying is that, although you are right that students in public schools do not have coextensive rights with those of adults in other settings, it is wrong to simply say "they are children" or "some might take exception" and censor free speech in schools.

To the contrary, the argument can and has been made that we should be careful in censoring students precisely because they are students.

From West Virginia v. Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=319&invol=624), 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

And, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=589#603), 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967), Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court, said:

"The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools." Shelton v. Tucker, [ 364 U.S. 479 ,] at 487. The classroom is peculiarly the "marketplace of ideas." The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth "out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection."

Similarly, we should not ban things simply because some might find it offensive:

From Tinker, 393 U.S. 503, 508-09:

The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.

And (although this applies to adults and is not addressing schools), from Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)(emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, selfreliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.

Is there a working definition of what "disruptive" means, or is it pretty much a case-by-case decision?

To be honest, my detailed knowledge runs out at the level of the Supreme Court cases and those haven't provided a clear answer as to what is sufficiently disruptive.

I am sure there are Court of Appeals and District Court opinions regarding what is and is not disruptive. I'll try to do a little research on that, but basically I think the question is whether a reasonable school official could find the speech in question actually disruptive to the school environment. That leaves a fair degree of discretion in the hands of school officials, but tries to protect free speech at the same time.

EDIT: This may be helpful. From Saxe v. State College Area School Dist. (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/994081.txt), 240 F. 3d 200, 211 (CA3 2001) (Alito, J.) (emphasis added):

Under Tinker, then, regulation of student speech is generally permissible only when the speech would substantially disrupt or interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students. As subsequent federal cases have made clear, Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance. In Chandler v. McMinnville School District, 978 F.2d 524 (9th Cir . 1992), for example, a middle school punished students who wore "SCAB" buttons to protest replacement teachers during a strike. Because the school had failed to present any evidence that the buttons were "inherently disruptive" to school activities, the court held that students could proceed with their First Amendment claim. In Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997), a high school student challenged his school's policy against gang-related apparel. The school applied the ban to prohibit the plaintiff, a devout Catholic, from wearing a rosary to school on the ground that some gangs had adopted the rosary as their identifying symbol. The court held that the ban failed to satisfy Tinker's substantial disruption test:

[A]lthough Plaintiffs wore their rosaries outside their shirts for several months, they were never misidentified as gang members nor approached by gang members. There also was no evidence that they attracted the attention of other students because of their rosaries.
. . . Accordingly, the Court finds that there was insufficient evidence of actual disruption at New Caney High School, or that there was substantial reason for NCISD to anticipate a disruption, to justify the infringement on Plaintiffs' religiously-motivated speech.

Chalifoux, 976 F. Supp. at 667. Finally, in Clark v. Dallas Independent School District, 806 F. Supp. 116, 120 (N.D. Tex. 1992), the court held that a high school could not prohibit its students from distributing religious tracts on school grounds. Again citing Tinker, the court held that "Defendants have failed to establish that Plaintiffs' distribution of the religious tracts gave rise to a material or substantial disruption of the operation" of the school. Id. at 120. Noting that the only evidence of disruption was the objection of several other students, the court observed that "f school officials were permitted to prohibit expression to which other students objected, absent any further justification, the officials would have a license to prohibit virtually every type of expression." Id .

The Tenth Circuit's recent decision in West v. Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F .3d 1358 (10th Cir. 2000), which reached a different r esult, nevertheless confirms Tinker's requir ements of specificity and concreteness. In West, a middle school student was suspended for drawing a Confederate flag in math class under a school policy providing that a "student shall not racially harass or intimidate another student by name calling, using racial or derogatory slurs,[or] wearing or possession of items depicting or implying racial hatred or prejudice." Id. at 1361. The Court upheld the suspension under Tinker's substantial disruption standard, finding that the school had demonstrated a concrete threat of substantial disruption:

ased upon recent past events, Derby School District officials had reason to believe that a student's display of the Confederate flag might cause disruption and interfere with the rights of other students to be secure and let alone. . . . The district experienced a series of racial incidents [including "hostile confr ontations" and at least one fight] in 1995, some of which were related to the Confederate flag. . . . The Racial Harassment policy enacted in response to this situation was clearly something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. The history of racial tension in the district made administrators' and parents' concerns about future substantial disruptions from possession of Confederate flag symbols at school reasonable.

Id. at 1366 (citation omitted). [B]As [I]West makes clear, the mere desire to avoid "discomfort" or"unpleasantness" is not enough to justify restricting student speech under Tinker. However, if a school can point to a well-founded expectation of disruption--especially one based on past incidents arising out of similar speech--the restriction may pass constitutional muster.

I hope that helps clear up a muddy issue a little bit. :)