General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJunior high teacher tells kid to remove Marines t-shirt or get suspended (has guns on it)
The latest bit of anti-gun hysteria erupted in a school setting on Monday when an eighth-grade teacher threatened a 14-year-old boy with suspension if he did not remove his t-shirt supporting the United States Marines.
The incident occurred in a reading class at Genoa-Kingston Middle School in a small town in northeast Illinois. The teacher, Karen Deverell, believed the interlocking rifles emblazoned across Michael McIntyres shirt violated the schools dress code, reports Fox News.
McIntyres father, Daniel McIntyre, said Deverell made him turn the shirt inside out for the rest of the day. He also noted that the boy had worn the shirt to school on many previous occasions without threats of suspension.
My son is very proud of the Marines, and, in fact, of all the services, the elder McIntyre told Fox News. So he wears it with pride. There are two rifles crossed underneath the word Marines on the shirt, but to me that should be overlooked. Its more about the Marines instead of the rifles.
http://news.yahoo.com/junior-high-teacher-tells-kid-remove-marines-t-123355966.html
Yes folks, even pictures of guns scare some people....solution? Wear your own shirt with a gun.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Did they cover how many shootings were yesterday in an attempt to make a pro gun control argument?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Orrex
(63,199 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)
But not quite.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Most people who complain about gun nuts have never really been around gun nuts. They scare me at times.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)
they don't typically wind up gun-controlling a dozen people to death.
Having dealt with both, I'd much rather deal with a gun control advocate than a gun advocate.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)You wouldn't do that to a person with a mental illness would you?
Or are you just taking the stigma associated with people who are mentally handicapped and projecting it on your "enemies"?
Orrex
(63,199 posts)That was a gross error on my part.
Edited.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)On the subject of Newtown mass shooter, Adam Lanza, who massacred an entire first grade class of children, their teachers, and his own mother:
ProgressiveProfessor (21,001 posts)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1986388
"That is not clear at this point...that the son (Adam Lanza, the killer) was deranged."
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)about what had really happened. The facts of the hour kept changing. I finished that post with:
At this point it seems to me to be more productive to mourn the victims while the facts emerge and not knee jerk blame the apparent first victim.
Somehow, given what we knew at the time, it still seems a good call.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)it "premature" for people to note that the killer of an entire classroom of children was deranged.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)that waiting until facts came out was reasonable. We are still waiting for some of those details.
Since the media was clearly just making shit up. Suggesting we mourn the innocent dead while the details became clear was a reasonable approach.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)We should consider the alternative possibilities...
There is enough discrimination against the mentally ill in the county.
I am as certain that Fairfield County, CT does not discriminate against the mentally ill as I am that your concern for the public image of mentally ill persons is as genuine as a Wells Fargo robo-signed mortgage document.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The shooting was over, he was dead. Why do you feel so strongly that it was a bad thing to focus on the innocent until the truth came out?
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Somebody posting pro-gun propaganda on DU, but doing so in the most transparently ludicrous way possible, so as to actually discredit, not strengthen, the gun-nut point of view.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)this is not one of them
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)How many of those you mention were gunned down with a shirt?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)The Nazi Swastika should be allowed ...
How many were slaughtered by Nazi Swastikas?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I suggest you delete that before some hot house orchid sprints off to Meta to throw a hissy fit. Equating the US Marines with (you can fill in the rest) is a BAD thing to suggest.
Moving along:
It might be reasonable for a school to ban images of firearms. I haven't seen any studies to suggest that this is anything other than feel-good nonsense, but it's their school. In America, however, certain things ALWAYS get a pass, and our military is one of those things.
I don't really care about the gun control issue, but stories like this one make the pro-gun control people look silly. The problem is not the reporting, the problem is that it happened. If you want to win a debate using reason, it is best to reject the unreasonable extreme from your ranks.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)xmas74
(29,673 posts)25 years or so ago we had a long list of t shirts we couldn't wear.
No concert shirts
No Guns and Roses shirts
No Spuds MacKenzie
No tobacco
No alcohol
No shirts that pertained or alluded to nudity or sexual acts
No obscene language
No shirts showing or advertising any kind of weaponry-this included hunting shirts
Military shirts were fine, as long as they were plain and showed no pictures. (Example: many of us had "ARMY" shirts. They were an olive color and had the simple Army block lettering in white. Anything other than that usually started arguments in my small town about which branch was the best and who was enlisting in which branch someday.)
Schools have always banned items of clothing for what are sometimes reasons unknown. People seemed to have forgotten how common that was just a few years ago. Schools ban at their discretion, sometimes for obvious reasons, sometimes over old incidents, sometimes over anecdotal accounts. Don't like it-fight it at a school board meeting or find another school.
(For the record-the reasoning in my school as to why weapons of any sort couldn't appear on a shirt was because it would disrupt a class. All it took was for one boy to make a comment and then they were all making comments.These are boys between the ages of 10-14. You can guess what kind of comments were made. I was in seventh grade when the ban over the hunting shirts went into effect due to disturbing comments made by a few of the boys.)
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Kudos to the teacher. Religion, Marines, whatever deserve no special protections or exemptions.
tridim
(45,358 posts)China?
I wonder if the US Military knows about this?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)When my late wife was teaching, one of the newer teachers expressed a concern at the staff meeting about the number of students wearing pro military clothing. He seemed blithely unaware that many of the school's student were from military families. At the next staff meeting, my wife wore a red sweatshirt with the classic anchor, globe, and eagle of the USMC and several other teachers did the same thing. He then told some people he was being harassed. He did not last long.
Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #15)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)My late wife was, but it was not coordinated action.
Post Gulf War it was quite common to see military shirts just about everywhere around there.
I was surprised that the teacher was unaware that many of the students came from military families. According to what I heard later he came to the conclusion that teaching was not for him and moved on. That is not unusual in the least these days.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Scraping the bottom of the old guns-are-teh-awesome barrel this morning, are we?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I guess you agree with the school then.
I didn't use those, I used yahoo - and other places are reporting it as well (try a place called Google, click on news, type in school name - takes about same amount of time it did you to make a non-reply).
Robb
(39,665 posts)Your choice of source just amplifies things. Click on your link and you get this:
...So I don't know why you're denying where it's coming from.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Thank you in advance.
Robb
(39,665 posts)What nonsense. A personal attack from me is unmistakable. I would call the OP a clown, or a buffoon, or perhaps an unthinking NRA shill.
But in this case, SS just looks stupid for linking to Tucker Carlson's rag, at least to everyone but the gun-cuddling set, who will go anywhere and post anything in their last-gasp attempts to remain relevant.
If noting that gets a post hidden, then so be it. I have nothing more to add to this nonsense, so being shut out from posting in this thread is of no consequence.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Your points on where the Yahoo link go are probably valid, but there is no reason to call someone stupid (and bragging about your skill in being *really* insulting -- eep).
Look, all I am asking is find a better way to make your point, please? You are an excellent writer, and I *know* you can do it.
Please?
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)I just ignore them and make sure I peruse those sources more frequently for other good topics for 'discussion'.
alp227
(32,015 posts)I posted a more neutral local newspaper story from the DeKalb Daily Chronicle at replies 173 and 174.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)now re-catapulted by DU. Because RW propaganda needs all the help it can get!
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The general stupidity of the source doesn't automatically transfer to any particular, specific story they run. Nor does it alter the fuckwittery displayed by these school officials...
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I will add a disclaimer to all future posts:
Please note: This story probably appears on web sites other than DU and may actually appear on some websites that are right wing oriented. If you notice that news posted is on other websites please treat this news as false and alert on this post (and call me stupid, since that will help as well) so it will be hidden asap. I don't want to look stupid because a story I posted from a news org shows up on other news org sites (and unlike some I don't have time to read through all of the rw places I don't visit to find out if they do).
There, that should help you avoid seeing any stories you don't want, commenting on them, or actually addressing the issues presented in news stories when those stories show up places you check out and don't like.
Robb
(39,665 posts)You pretend that a story written for the Daily Caller, by the Daily Caller's education editor, and distributed by Yahoo with a big fucking "FROM THE DAILY CALLER - CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE DAILY CALLER" banner on it, is something that can be characterized as "appears on web sites other than DU."
Your posting history suggests you've been in the bag for the NRA for some time. This thread makes it clear your willingness to promote their agenda transcends the usual simple parroting and has launched into the realm of propagandist.
No, you don't look stupid at all.
Tell us, where did you happen to stumble across this story? No wait, let me guess: you were thumbing through the Utne Reader at a Fellowship of Reconciliation meeting, right?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)You seem awful upset that people don't agree with you 100% on guns, which is why instead of discussing this story and various points you just call people stupid and accuse them of being in the bag for the NRA.
Get back to me when you become able to discuss the topic at hand and not sit around calling people names as your argument.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Toby Keiths Longtime Bassist Chuck Goff Killed
http://tasteofcountry.com/toby-keith-bassist-chuck-goff-dead/
I was going to post that story but...damn...fox news has it and so do other rw sites, therefore it would be a waste of time to post it since people would just rush off to see if that was the case and come back here and complain about the sources and not comment in any intelligent way about it (not to mention it must not be true now)
Please, if you have time, give us all a list of places that we have to check first to see if something is not stupid to post so we make sure not to upset you. Don't want you to waste your time or anything. I did not see Toby Keith on daily caller BUT I did see his name there so I think they like him.
It will take me some time, maybe 5-10 min per story I read, but I will be sure not to do something stupid and post news other places have. Thanks for the tip, I feel smarter already!
alp227
(32,015 posts)BTW this school is located about 50 miles west of Chicago and 20 east of Rockford.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I think a few du'ers should write your local paper and call them stupid, might make them feel all better about it (and they can ignore the story that way and not comment on it)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... Zero Tolerance, you and the dickheads over Fox Snooze don't comprehend?
Delicate Flowers must not be too bright.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Delicate is being outraged because people too damn stupid to follow clearly stated policies end up reaping the results they EARNED.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Am I supposed to be impressed?
Gun worship is a mental illness.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Have to wonder what action will be taken
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... it means the superintendent should be replaced.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts).. and replaced with someone that has a spine.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)she wouldn't be reaping the results she EARNED.
Bake
(21,977 posts)They're designed for administrators who don't have actual brains and need black-and-white policies to tell them what to do. They result in kindergartners getting suspended for shooting bubble guns.
I'd rather be a delicate flower than a fool.
Bake
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Joe Burgess is the Dekalb County Supertintendent of Schools.
Very simply, its not a violation, Burgess told the Daily Chronicle. Its a very common symbol for the U.S. Marines. Had we had an opportunity to discuss it, we could have straightened out the situation.
On a somewhat related note, when my son was in 7th Grade, he used this picture as a humorous illustration in a PowerPoint presentation he was doing for his class.
He had to go talk to the school guidance counselor.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)I agree, very disgusting, you ALWAYS close the ammo tray lid before firing, that squirrel is just asking for a mis-feed. And not to be too critical, the mount really needs to be move back from the edge of the rock. I hope the guidance counselor was able to pass on a few pointers.
Macoy
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Perhaps some warm cookies served on a doily.
Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #71)
ProgressiveProfessor This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Be nice if you said what was so disgusting about it in your opinion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240231247
pintobean
(18,101 posts)That may be "humorous" to you and you and your son, but I have a large oak tree in my yard. I sure as shit don't want armed squirrels taking over my property.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)when a neighbor, who raises expensive racing pigeons, moved in. I didn't want to make any costly mistakes. That leaves me completely unarmed and defenseless to a squirrel attack.
I don't believe rodents have second amendment rights. Has the SC ruled on this yet?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)TXDem1975
(4 posts)Adam Lanza's parents probably assumed their son wouldn't do anything like what he ended up doing. If only someone had detected his problems before he blasted up to 11 holes in 20 tiny bodies. Maybe his mother wouldn't have provided him with easy access to the AR15 and ammo. Too late for 20 tiny kids, but maybe we can learn something from the Lanza errors and save some young lives in the future. And stop demonizing teachers who attempt to nurture a safe and appropriate classroom atmosphere.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)plain tshirts. They had a bunch with 70s album covers, skate boarding, snow boards, a couple from the Navy... I got tired of trying to figure out what would piss off whom.
If the kid had worn it there before, why is it suddenly a problem? The first time he wore it, something should have been said.
randome
(34,845 posts)Then why are the guns so prominent? Why not a t-shirt without guns? I don't see this as a big deal. Wear a t-shirt that doesn't include implications of violence.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But their main purpose, like all the armed forces, is to use weapons.
Do any of the armed forces spend much time doing anything else other than using or preparing to use weaponry? Maybe someone can enlighten me.
I know sometimes humanitarian emergencies are called for but how often are they deployed for that purpose?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)equipment repair, or general administration, you probably spend most of your time preparing to use weaponry.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)doing other things. My father has a nice rifle sharpshooter badge but spent most of his time at 29 Palms fixing communications equipment.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)However being a rifleman is a core value to the USMC. Army not so much.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)of their time doing, though. While they are required to be ready, able and prepared for battle, this is not the day-to-day job of many people especially when they're not in a combat zone.
spin
(17,493 posts)My first year involved basic training and an education in electronic. I then became an electronics instructor for a year. When the demand for electronic technicians dropped I was sent to Massachusetts to work on radio communications gear aboard radar picket aircraft that flew over the Atlantic Ocean. These aircraft were unarmed.
I fired an M16 assault rifle in basic training and once a year qualified on the range with an M1 carbine.
I repaired and tuned a lot of radios including some from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
My bother in law was a helicopter crew chief. After a tour of duty in Vietnam he returned stateside and his helicopter was sent to Mississippi to help in the recovery from Hurricane Camile.
The guy who rented an apartment below mine on Cape Cod was a bosun's mate on a cutter and spent much of his time rescuing people in trouble on the ocean.
Pararescue
(131 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)I enjoyed my time in the Air Force and often wish that I would have reenlisted.
Pararescue
(131 posts)retired as a Chief Master Sgt. (E-9).
Never regretted my decision to make it a career.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)That's why I lugged one around for 4 years...just to look cool.
alp227
(32,015 posts)the top 5 or so results do not have guns however i found one with a skull and two crossed guns. interestingly the yahoo/daily caller story doesn't have photo of the shirt but a local news source does:
sadbear
(4,340 posts)It's of her favorite band My Chemical Romance.
I didn't even notice that it had guns on it. (All I saw was an intricate design. Silly me.) But sure enough, a teacher finally noticed it after about a month of my daughter wearing it everyday. She was told to remove it and never wear it at school again.
We knew the rules and didn't have a problem with them. It just sucks because that hoodie wasn't cheap.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)It's being posted on mostly rightwing sites (at least that's what I found doing a quick Google search).
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)I was an Infantryman in the Army for 5.5 years. War sucks and I don't support or believe in violence, but I sport my Infantry cross rifles on my lab coat at work. My military service and the war is a huge part of my identity that I can't and never will move beyond. I wear and display some of those symbols more out of a desire to connect with others who have experienced what I have than anything else. I don't know if that makes any sense...
So what does my post have to do with anything that you wrote or the OP? I don't know. I'm just kind off in a ranty sort of mood right now. I personally wouldn't wear that shirt, but if it had a picture of a Combat Infantryman's Badge (pictured below) on it, I'd be all over it.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)so you should wear it with pride.
The kid's shirt is more an example of, I don't know, wannabe machismoism or something like that.
My son is 12 and wants to go into the Marines...he wears almost everywhere he goes a hoodie with "MARINES" and its logo on it. I respect that much more than I do the shirt pictured above.
Having said that, though, based on school policy it seems to me like the teacher overreacted. However, because everyone is so overwhelmed by gun violence, I guess I can also see why she'd be sensitive to the image and would interpret it as promoting violent behavior.
Interesting times... :-|
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)They should expel the kid.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Have to wonder what action will be taken
Nine
(1,741 posts)The teacher was interpreting the dress code as best he could. The student was asked to turn his shirt inside out. If the boy was threatened with suspension, it's probably because he was refusing to comply with the teacher's request. All the parents had to do was bring this up to the school and they would have been told the shirt was ok. Instead they decided to run to the media with it.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)There is no requirement to stay within the school chain, never has been. Here is an unrelated case of why going outside can be a better approach: http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/27/california-high-school-principal-orders-student-to-delete-video-of-teacher-stealing/
All public employees should conduct themselves with a view to what is called the Washington Post test (what if this was featured on the front page of the Washington Post). I always tried to.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Who's going to pay for this counseling?
Look, schools have three choices when it comes to dress codes. 1. They can have no dress code, which means allowing gang symbols, hate speech and symbols, sexually explicit imagery, and anything else you can imagine. 2. They can hire a team of lawyers to come up with the most comprehensive dress code ever seen to cover every possibility you could ever think of. Or 3, they can make reasonable, minimal guidelines and hope that common sense and communication between teachers, students, and parents will make up the difference. Guns are weapons, and weapons are, by definition, violent. I don't think the teacher's judgement in this case was so far out of line. The school administration did not agree with the teacher, but that doesn't mean the teacher was "wrong" in the way you mean it. To me it's like a lower court ruling being overturned by a higher court. I think a teacher having an erroneous interpretation of a dress code is far less egregious than parents failing the basic step of going to the school administration with their concern. This did not have to be a big deal. The parents made it into one.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)and how it should be handled in the future. Pretty safe bet that has already happened in this case. I did not call for outside counseling.
Do not forget that there were better ways to handle it on the teacher's side. They were not done. That is the seminal cause of this event. This was a classic Washington Post test fail.
When a lower court is reversed by a high court, it indeed means they were wrong. Same thing here. However, there are degrees of wrongfulness. I am not suggesting that the teacher to be fired etc.
Bake
(21,977 posts)The teacher threatened the kid with SUSPENSION.
Screw the teacher.
Bake
TXDem1975
(4 posts)How do you know that the teacher threatened suspension? What if you're wrong, and the kid or his father misrepresented what actually happened, looking for 15 minutes of fame, or an outlet for their own hate? Have you never heard of a kid who embellished a story about what really happened at school? Or a parent (who happens to be the head of a local Tea Party group) using his kid to further his own agenda, at the expense of teacher who was just trying to do her job, but now is the "target" of threats all over the Internet?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)We need to nip this in the bud before they grow up into dangerous gun nuts.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)When my late wife was teaching, one of the new teachers at the school expressed a concern at the staff meeting about the number of students wearing pro military clothing. He seemed blithely unaware that many of the school's student were from military families. At the next staff meeting, my wife wore a red sweatshirt with the classic anchor, globe, and eagle of the USMC and several other teachers did similar things. He then whined he was being harassed. He did not last long.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)You left out the delicate flowers part.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Have to wonder what actions will be taken
sadbear
(4,340 posts)Especially when a parent complains or even *gasp* threatens to sue.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Perhaps the teacher should have called the parents, pointed out that it was a technical violation of the dress code, and that as a teacher they did not want to see the child get in trouble. It takes it from the intimidation approach that was used to a counseling approach focused on the best interests of the student. It also means there is nothing there for the media to sensationalize
sadbear
(4,340 posts)"McIntyres father, Daniel McIntyre, said Deverell made him turn the shirt inside out for the rest of the day. He also noted that the boy had worn the shirt to school on many previous occasions without threats of suspension."
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)sadbear
(4,340 posts)Who knows? Fox news tends not to publish things that go against the talking point they're pushing.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)However, the Superintendent came down on the side of the student. Pretty well settles things
sadbear
(4,340 posts)But that's not surprising at all. Like I said, administrators run from any hint of controversy or lawsuit.
TXDem1975
(4 posts)Can you imagine what this overblown controversy has done to the teacher involved? I read that the school had to call the police to the school because of all the threats posted online and to her email. A gentle soul just trying to do her job, and not able to tell the other side of the story, receiving threats of bodily harm from followers of the Tea Party father. This is a terrible thing to have happen to a teacher, most of whom are very gentle souls and love their students regardless of what a student or his parent do to cause great distress for the teacher. The kind of attacks she's the victim of could be life and career changing for her. And who knows, if the kid is lying or the father taking this to such a ridiculous level, may result in a kid learning a lesson that won't be productive for him or for society. That father would have done his son a favor by teaching him that it's no big deal, and just bought him a t-shirt with the REAL Marine insignia, one without two M16's plastered on the front. Now the kid knows how to get his father's backing. And he has learned to make the school look like the enemy. I can't imagine the Marine Corps endorsing this campaign against a teacher.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Right now, every single educator is on pins and needles
Don't test them right now, is my advice
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)This shirt was not so egregious that a significant authority figure should have threatened the child as they did. It should have been a quiet discussion with the parents. Bad judgement on the teacher's part.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)But right now the thought is its better to overreact than underreact...
Nine
(1,741 posts)You really would have preferred that the parents be called into school to discuss this? The parents had the option to initiate a quiet discussion with the school and instead they couldn't wait to run to the media.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The teacher failed the Washington post test. Oh well, they will have to live with it.
Nine
(1,741 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It is "What if this action/event/email etc appears on the front page of the Washington Post". Its mostly a Washington DC Fed thing, but the concept applies more broadly. Its a clue as to how all public employees should act. This teacher did not do well in that regards.
This is now on multiple media sources, Google is your friend.
Nine
(1,741 posts)I never said that this was only on Fox News. What I meant was that I don't see this as an action the teacher in this case needs to be ashamed of. This is a nothing story. A teacher asked a kid to turn his shirt inside out. Fox News and their ilk used this nothing story to feed an agenda. People shouldn't do things they would be afraid of becoming public, but when sensational journalism can turn anything into fodder, that's almost impossible to prevent.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)I hear conservatives have low IQs but here's proof!
Bake
(21,977 posts)But I'm glad the Marines are skilled with their "death sticks."
They're the freakin' MILITARY. The tip of the spear, so to speak. That's what they do. What they're trained to do. It's a shame that our civilization (and I use the word loosely) needs trained killers, but it does. I'm glad we have them.
Death sticks, indeed.
Bake
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)The gun on the shirt may have been a part pf it, but the fact that it was a Marines shirt would have been enough to make them remove it at many schools.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It often varies from school to school and was originally started as anti-gang IIRC. Some require no words. Some even limit colors. Certain images are also expressly banned (Confederate...) Very localized.
madmom
(9,681 posts)had guns on it were not allowed, why should this one be? Simply because it had the word "marine" on it? Double standard much?
Whats_that
(33 posts)The teacher implemented policy incorrectly out of fear.
madmom
(9,681 posts)the word "marine" on it, would it be allowed?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Per another poster in this thread, the rules are: Student dress (including accessories) may not advertise, promote, or picture alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, violent behavior, or other inappropriate images.
Based on the shirt picture I saw here, I would not consider promoting violent behavior, but I can see how some would feel differently. It had apparently been worn before without incident.
This was gray, the Superintendent sided with the student.
madmom
(9,681 posts)allowed because it was all about the Marines. If there were another shirt with guns and just as innocuous, would it be allowed?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)If the school had a rifle team and had team shirts, it would be good for me. If it was a Black Ops t-shirt, not so much.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Errrrr merrr Gerrrrrd!
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Its a typical media filler for a slow day.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)alert the media!!!!!!
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)would be more accurate. Clearly there were better ways on all sides that this could have been handled, but the teacher started the ball rolling on this one. However it is clearly a filler on a slow day.
A more scary education story is here: http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/27/california-high-school-principal-orders-student-to-delete-video-of-teacher-stealing/
I'll handle it, now delete the evidence...
sadbear
(4,340 posts)"According to Fox News, the school districts clothing policy doesnt appear to address guns on shirts that show support for the United States military with any specificity. The closest rule that applies reads: Student dress (including accessories) may not advertise, promote, or picture alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, violent behavior, or other inappropriate images."
Violent behavior?
If it were me, yeah, I'd say the shirt promoted violent behavior. (And if it doesn't, then what the hell does?)
Nine
(1,741 posts)You yourself have said on this thread that the dress code is vague, ambiguous (probably by design), and a gray area. And yet you want to blame the teacher involved for having a different interpretation of what constitutes violent imagery than the superintendent. You want the teacher to be called into the principal's office and "counseled." You want the school to keep its eye on the teacher to make sure he doesn't try to retaliate. You say the teacher "failed the Washington Post test" as though he brought shame upon himself. All this for asking a kid to turn his shirt inside out during a busy school day. You say, oh the media is running with this because it's a slow news day - as though you yourself aren't making hay about this and using it to promote your own agenda.
And I highly doubt the teacher started off threatening suspension. More likely the kid was mouthing off and being insubordinate (something he should learn not to be if he's so enamored of the military) and the teacher had to resort to an ultimatum. Students are supposed to obey their teachers in school. There may be exceptional scenarios where disobedience is warranted but I don't think this was one of them.
This has nothing to do with anti-gun hysteria, anti-military sentiment, zero tolerance policies in schools, teacher abuses of students, freedom of expression through attire, or any other agenda people are trying to push. This was one teacher at one school in the entire nation making a reasonable judgement call during a busy school day. And since you like to use the phrase "delicate flowers" to describe people you disagree with, I would argue that the delicate flowers in this case were the ones who ran to the media to bawl about having to turn a shirt inside out without even trying to discuss it with anyone at the school.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The teacher took an unnecessarily aggressive steps when they were better ones available.
You want the teacher to be called into the principal's office and "counseled."
You and I both know that has already happened. Hopefully he had the good sense to admit his mistakes
You want the school to keep its eye on the teacher to make sure he doesn't try to retaliate.
Having seen that happen to my own kids, I think it needs to be watched for, to what level depends on the teacher.
You say the teacher "failed the Washington Post test" as though he brought shame upon himself.
He failed the WP test by his own actions. You are bringing in concept of shame. I could see that he is at least embarrassed by it.
All this for asking a kid to turn his shirt inside out during a busy school day.
He made a bad call, reasons unknown. While there is not a lot of data, it seems reasonable that the teacher had actually seen that child in that same shirt previously and did nothing.
You say, oh the media is running with this because it's a slow news day - as though you yourself aren't making hay about this and using it to promote your own agenda.
My take is that the teacher made a mistake and things grew from there. Its a teachable moment for both sides. What is my agenda beyond that?
And I highly doubt the teacher started off threatening suspension. More likely the kid was mouthing off and being insubordinate (something he should learn not to be if he's so enamored of the military) and the teacher had to resort to an ultimatum.
Presumptively he was protesting that he had worn that shirt before without issues. That is not mouthing off nor insubordination. Ultimatums are about the poorest way to control and manage people of any age. Had that not been issued, this never would have bubbled up. Note that the military does not want automatons. They need and expect their people to think. We should want the same from our children.
Students are supposed to obey their teachers in school. There may be exceptional scenarios where disobedience is warranted but I don't think this was one of them.
IIRC the child did. He then took it to his parents who took it from there, which is also the correct course of action.
This has nothing to do with anti-gun hysteria, anti-military sentiment, zero tolerance policies in schools, teacher abuses of students, freedom of expression through attire, or any other agenda people are trying to push. This was one teacher at one school in the entire nation making a reasonable judgement call during a busy school day.
The judgement call and methods were clearly questionable.
And since you like to use the phrase "delicate flowers" to describe people you disagree with, I would argue that the delicate flowers in this case were the ones who ran to the media to bawl about having to turn a shirt inside out without even trying to discuss it with anyone at the school.
The delicate flowers is a slur used against those who support gun rights based on a Tom Tomorrow cartoon. Some of us turn it around when appropriate. I assume you are unaware of that. Considering some of the other posters in this thread, it was a fair use.
Again you come back to keeping it within the building. It is not a requirement nor a reasonable expectation at this point, Teachers and administrators know this and they need to act accordingly. The unrelated case I cited is a clear example of why.
Nine
(1,741 posts)I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I guess we'll also have to disagree about the need for discipline in schools or in the military. When my son's teacher asks him to do something, I expect him to do it. I expect this of all students except in the most extreme cases, like a teacher demanding sexual favors or a teacher instructing a student to hurt someone else. I never said the military wanted automatons, but don't tell me they don't expect soldiers to follow orders except, as I said, in rare cases. When a student defies a teacher or a soldier defies a superior, of course I expect them to receive warnings about the disciplinary consequences of their actions. Even toddlers get warned about time-outs. You think protesting an order while failing to comply is not insubordination? That's exactly what insubordination is.
I don't understand your fixation on the fact that the teacher threatened suspension if the kid refused to comply. Every command or order inherently contains the threat of discipline if you fail to comply. That's what an order is. Otherwise it's just a request. You seem to be arguing that it was not so bad for the teacher to ask the kid to turn the shirt inside out, but it was just dreadful and "unnecessarily aggressive" that he insisted on it, even threatening disciplinary action if the kid continued to refuse. By that logic when a student protests an order, teachers are supposed to just say, well ok, and walk away.
And we'll have to agree to disagree on the reasonableness of going to the media with this complaint without talking to a single adult at the school - not the teacher, not the principal, not the superintendent, not even someone on the board of education. I call that a jerk move by people with an agenda. You seem to think all those people couldn't be trusted to handle the situation without retaliating against the kid or staging a massive coverup and that there would be no way to possibly protect against such an occurrence. I find that ridiculous and paranoid.
You say you have no agenda. I believe otherwise. I think the pro-gun forces were hoping this would be a great example of "anti-gun hysteria" and the superintendent took the wind out of their sails by saying the shirt was fine and the parents would have known that if they had bothered to ask. So now the story is changing to... uh, well, maybe the dress code needs to be designed so that it can't be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. And maybe this school isn't anti-gun, but the teacher certainly is!!
It's all so ridiculous.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)No surprise there
I guess we'll also have to disagree about the need for discipline in schools or in the military.
Actually we are disagreeing about leadership techniques.
When my son's teacher asks him to do something, I expect him to do it. I expect this of all students except in the most extreme cases, like a teacher demanding sexual favors or a teacher instructing a student to hurt someone else. I never said the military wanted automatons, but don't tell me they don't expect soldiers to follow orders except, as I said, in rare cases. When a student defies a teacher or a soldier defies a superior, of course I expect them to receive warnings about the disciplinary consequences of their actions. Even toddlers get warned about time-outs. You think protesting an order while failing to comply is not insubordination? That's exactly what insubordination is.
That depends heavily on context, circumstances, intent, and style. Sometimes the right thing to do is to hear the protest out, other times you acknowledge it and agree to discuss it later. Dictatorial behavior is rarely if ever appropriate and in the long term it is a recipe for failure in teaching and the military. IME, high schools at times seem more interested having automatons than the military. I say that as someone who served in the Army and taught at the high school and university level.
I don't understand your fixation on the fact that the teacher threatened suspension if the kid refused to comply. Every command or order inherently contains the threat of discipline if you fail to comply. That's what an order is. Otherwise it's just a request. You seem to be arguing that it was not so bad for the teacher to ask the kid to turn the shirt inside out, but it was just dreadful and "unnecessarily aggressive" that he insisted on it, even threatening disciplinary action if the kid continued to refuse. By that logic when a student protests an order, teachers are supposed to just say, well ok, and walk away.
No, it was poor technique and poor leadership. That in the end resulted in something trivial hitting national media. No matter what other bad actors there were, it all started due to bad judgement by the teacher.
And we'll have to agree to disagree on the reasonableness of going to the media with this complaint without talking to a single adult at the school - not the teacher, not the principal, not the superintendent, not even someone on the board of education. I call that a jerk move by people with an agenda.
I did not say it was a reasonable behavior, I said it was reasonable to expect it to happen and it happens more and more frequently. I discuss why further on
You seem to think all those people couldn't be trusted to handle the situation without retaliating against the kid or staging a massive coverup and that there would be no way to possibly protect against such an occurrence. I find that ridiculous and paranoid.
Some can, some cannot. I saw some bad acts by teachers and staff, including vengeance, when we returned to the US so our daughters could finish up in US schools. Very few to be sure, but it did happen and there would have been no consequences had the parents not pushed the issue. Watching out for it is reasonable after something gets splashed in the national media, denying it happens is not. I provided just such an example from PINAC (http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/27/california-high-school-principal-orders-student-to-delete-video-of-teacher-stealing/) (Ill take care of it, now destroy the evidence). Be glad to discuss our experiences in the Calvert Country school system if you like.
You say you have no agenda. I believe otherwise. I think the pro-gun forces were hoping this would be a great example of "anti-gun hysteria" and the superintendent took the wind out of their sails by saying the shirt was fine and the parents would have known that if they had bothered to ask. So now the story is changing to... uh, well, maybe the dress code needs to be designed so that it can't be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. And maybe this school isn't anti-gun, but the teacher certainly is!!
Some of the usual suspects here have tried to make it a gun incident. It clearly is not and pointing that out to them has caused some distraction on this thread. I am not watching what is being said elsewhere.
You are also incorrect about the agenda being about guns. The core issue is anti public school/ anti public school teacher/anti-union sentiment that is running rife through this country. Teachers know all about it too. Taverner in another post in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2440601) made an observation Right now, every single educator is on pins and needles Don't test them right now, is my advice. Taverner is a good poster but he got the polarity reversed this time. Teachers are under a microscope. Any actions that can get questioned will in the least convenient manner and forum, AKA the Washington Post test. That is the real world of education today, and it goes on at the university level as well. Its like gravity, it sucks, but we have to deal with it. This teacher chose poorly. Hopefully he has learned from it and this goes away.
It's all so ridiculous.
I tend to agree with you there. As elleng posted in this thread, (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022440171#post126)
"GREAT way to throw away a teaching moment...Hate to say this, but some teachers don't use their heads OR their discretion." It think that sums it up well.
There was an unnecessary confrontation of some sort. A teacher who chose poorly started it and parents that took it to the media rather than keeping it in the building fanned the flames. Bad choices all round and in the end it just fuels the anti public school/ anti public school teacher/anti-union sentiment.
Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #136)
ProgressiveProfessor This message was self-deleted by its author.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)or drugs, alcohol or drug paraphernalia.
The state legislature passed this legislation. Can't blame teachers or school districts.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If it is Kansas, I could kind of understand the boneheadedness of such a law (from KS leg), but I'd like to see it.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)He is a solid poster and not given to hyperbole.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If we're talking about administrative codes, school codes, etc, and the court's refusal to overturn such, that's a ballpark away from a state legislature making it illegal to wear a certain t-shirt.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Schools have been given the right to restrict clothing that disrupts the learning environment. There are several court rulings.
http://education.findlaw.com/student-rights/school-dress-codes.html
http://www.splc.org/wordpress/?p=2713
Courts have also upheld a school's right to restrict what students wear to school.
http://www.ehow.com/info_7895468_court-cases-involving-school-uniforms.html
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070306/news_1m6tshirt.html
Under the Tinker test, schools may prohibit certain items of clothing if it can be shown that wearing them is disruptive to the school environment or creates discipline problems. Recently, certain colors, gang insignias, some sports logos, or displays of profanity on clothes have been banned. Generally, if a school?s dress code promotes discipline or good health, it will survive a legal challenge. - See more at: http://askthejudge.wpengine.com/do-school-dress-codes-violate-students-first-amendment-right/#sthash.G7NNQw78.dpuf
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I'd be interested in seeing the state law mentioned.
Thanks!
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Otherwise there would be a whole bunch of people in jail.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Ours is pretty general but a shirt with an image of a gun would most likely be considered disruptive and that would violate our dress code for employees.
An adult who is not an employee could wear whatever they wanted. But I'm reminded of a family I encountered at our district office back at the beginning of the year. A man, a woman and two small children. They were asking about kindergarten enrollment. The man was wearing a shirt that said 'WHAT THE FUCK R U LOOKING AT?'. While that was certainly legal, it didn't prevent me from wondering just how stupid you have to be to wear that shirt when you go to enroll a kid in kindergarten.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Peter cotton
(380 posts)Iggo
(47,548 posts)elleng
(130,861 posts)Hate to say this, but some teachers don't use their heads OR their discretion.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)"Student dress (including accessories) may not advertise, promote, or picture alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, violent behavior, or other inappropriate images.
The problem is that "inappropriate images" is vague, and leaves it up to staff members to determine what is "inappropriate" on the spot. McIntyre is right about that. I'm sure that there would be disagreement on the part of any group of adults over whether or not various specific images might be inappropriate.
The article doesn't say whether or not the teacher asked the student to change his shirt, was refused, and then threatened the suspension, or whether the teacher simply walked up to the student and said, "remove the shirt or be suspended" without any prior discussion, which is highly unlikely.
The "send students to the principal for a 2nd opinion and final determination" is standard procedure in most schools. The catch-22 is whether or not this particular school is one in which teachers are pressured NOT to send students to the office to resolve issues, but to handle it themselves. This is also quite common.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)I get why some people are jittery after experiences like Columbine and Newtown but people need to get a little perspective. Pictures of guns are not going to kill people, lego guns are not going to kill people, imitating guns using your hands is not going to kill anybody, and elementary school-age children playing cops and robbers during recess is not going to hurt anybody nor does it mean that any of them are likely to show up toting guns and shooting up the school the next day. I can kind of understand worrying about toy guns as some of them are so realistic that they might be mistaken for real guns but none of the other stuff should be viewed as threatening much less be cause for suspensions or other disciplinary actions.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... explicit pictures of people having sex aren't going to get anyone pregnant or spread STDs either. So, by your reasoning sexually pornographic depictions on clothes being worn at public schools should be just fine.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)(and I'm fairly certain pornographic t-shirts wouldn't be allowed in any school under any circumstances either). However, if we're talking about somebody freaking out specifically about his shirt just because it has guns on it, that's a different issue. I was just making comments on what I see as a certain hysteria that has developed in some of our schools around the country, particularly since Columbine. There have been plenty of examples over the years where schools are handling their legitimate concerns about school violence/safety by adopting some crazy policies and overreacting to certain situations and IMHO harming children as a result.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It is not "a different issue." It is precisely the same issue. Glorifying guns, gun culture, militarism, and the violence they are responsible for, is merely a form of pornography you prefer.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)I wasn't commenting on the substance of the t-shirt, just suggesting that the teacher is perhaps overreacting to it. I'm not even into guns myself. But I don't think that I'd threaten to suspend somebody over somebody wearing a t-shirt I didn't agree with/approve of though.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... a student over wearing a t-shirt with a graphic image of genitals on it? I understand the desire to sidestep this very appropriate analogy because it makes some folks uncomfortable, however, it actually goes straight to the heart of the issue.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)Most people (I think) would agree that there are some huge differences between pictures of guns on a t-shirt vs. graphic sexual images. I would expect fewer knee-jerk reactions (in most cases) to a t-shirt with pictures of guns than I would to a shirt with graphic images. I would imagine that most school dress codes would probably not allow students to wear either types of shirts but what are we really talking about here? I think that perhaps we are talking past each other. My overall point was teachers and school staff overreacting to tragedies at Columbine, Newtown, etc. and taking it out on students whom aren't doing anything other than expressing themselves through their clothes.
onenote
(42,688 posts)speech. You may not agree, but at this moment in time, you don't have the law on your side.
There undoubtedly are shirts that depict firearms (even if they refer to the military) in ways that are sufficiently violent or aggressive as to justifiy a school telling a student to change clothes. But a ban on any shirt depicting a firearm regardless of context? Such a ban would almost certainly fail if it gets to the SCOTUS.
Here are three shirts. A school could probably say no to the first. It almost certainly could not say no to the second. And the third? Probably can't ban that one. That one, by the way, is the shirt in question in the instance described in the OP.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... slave owners "rights" were "protected by law."
Shit changes.
onenote
(42,688 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I didn't "think" a court would ever give corporations the rights granted to people or pretend the money and speech are the same thing. Now it's "the protected law."
Guess you support that too, eh?
onenote
(42,688 posts)you were unaware of the fact that that the NAACP was protected from being sued for organizing a boycott, that the NY Times was protected against being prevented from publishing the Pentagon Papers, that Hustler Magazine was protected against a suit for infliction of emotional harm by Jerry Falwell, etc. etc. etc. The Supreme Court first recognized that an "artificial" corporate entity could have rights under the constitution as far back as tthe early 1800s when Justice John Marshall recognized that the constitutional "contract" clause applied not merely to contracts between natural persons, but also contracts to which a corporation was a party.
And in response to your snark, no, I don't support, in the context of poltiical spending, the CU holding that there is no distinction between the regulation that can be applied to a corporation and the level of regulation that can be applied to individuals. The law has long drawn distinctions between types of speech and types of speakers. CU was wrong in that it failed to acknowledge that there substantial governmental interests for drawing the distinction that was drawn in the legislation that was at issue in that case. However, I do support the NY Times, DU, MoveOn, the NAACP, the Democratic National Committee, and other "corporate" entities having first amendment rights. Apparently you don't.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)A long winded nothing.
onenote
(42,688 posts)Its a yes or no question. Answering yes doesn't mean you think that they should automatically have identical first amendment and other constitutional rights as individuals but that you do agree that the constitution applies to corporations.
A no answer means you don't think that corporations should have any constitutional rights.
Also, do you think that the expenditure of money in the form of advertising or in support of a publisher of speech should be protected under the First Amendment. A no answer means that the government could ban individuals from making contributions to DU or DU from accepting contributions. A yes answer doesn't mean that the government can't put some limits on expenditures by individuals, but that those limitations have to serve a substantial governmental interest.
It could be that we actually are in agreement.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Furthermore, lame black and white answer only questions are nothing more than bait used by dishonest people to trap others into lame word games. I ain't playing. Take it over to Freeperville, it's more their style.
onenote
(42,688 posts)and attempted to make it relevant to this discussion.
But I can understand why, having demonstrated your lack of understanding of the case after raising it, why you wouldn't want to discuss it.
And since it apparently is now okay to suggest that DUers take their posts to Freeperville, I suggest you follow your own advice since accusing posters of dishonesty and avoiding having a discussion is more their style.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)But you being so very fucking brilliant and me being so very fucking stupid, I guess that never dawned on you. Welcome to gone. Forever.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I believe you have to be 18+ to buy sexually explicit material.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... the question begging, but thanks for playing.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I'm stating a simple fact: children cannot have sexually explicit material. They can have pictures of guns, unless the picture also has sexually explicit material.
Therefore, the comparison of children having pictures of guns in school and children having sexually explicit materials in school is off.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Nothing more, nothing less, and completely irrelevant to the point I made.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)which led me to believe your interpretation of the fallacy is incorrect.
1.Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2.Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
Examples of Begging the Question
1.Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
2."If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
3."The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
4.Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
My claim was/is: Minors are not legally allowed to buy sexually explicit materials. Minors are allowed to buy images of guns. Therefore, the comparison of sexually explicit materials to images of guns is a poor comparison.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... exactly what am I supposed to do or say about it? It's like trying to have a rational conversation with a Teabagger. I'm not here to educate the purposely ignorant.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)If you were truly trying to have a rational conversation, you would back up your claims and avoid insults.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... any fucking "claims."
Try your lame bait on someone else, I'm done with you. Goodbye. Have a nice life.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)That is obviously a claim.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)There shouldn't be a "if it is military then it is ok" clause.
onenote
(42,688 posts)Not all depictions of guns can be viewed as so disruptive to the school environment as to justify a ban. In constitutional parlance, such a ban would be overinclusive.
On the other hand, a ban that exempted any shirt that depicted guns so long as it referenced the military would fail on constitutional grounds as well.
It depends on the total context. In another post, I attached pictures of three shirts that depict guns and reference the military. I can't imagine a ban that applied to the first one being upheld. The second one almost certainly could be banned whether it referenced the military or not. The third one, which is the shirt in this case, falls in between the two but I believe that if a case based on that shirt being banned ever made it to the Supreme Court, the school's effort to ban it would fail.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It was gray at best. Child had previously worn the shirt without issue.
A teacher made a bad call. Parents took it out of the building and to the media directly (tacky at best). It ends up getting splashed on national media. Lots of teachable moments on all sides.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You'd think kid's parents might have been a little more sensitive to the situation. But then, maybe parents are gun cultists and think that crap is cool.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)That it was a Marine t-shirt was secondary. It could have been unicorns and my pretty ponies. As others have pointed out, the teacher made a questionable decision and the parents took it straight to the media.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Makes as much sense as saying guns kill people.