8th grader arrested,suspended for NRA tshirt

[Gumbo4x4]

And this is why I am all for school uniforms. Wear what you want on the weekends, during the school week it's all about the uniform.

I don't know if I'd go that far. Some places ban all lettering and pictures from shirts (with an exception for school pride type clothing). Seems a fair compromise.

 

[Granny square]

And this is why I am all for school uniforms. Wear what you want on the weekends, during the school week it's all about the uniform.

Or use common sense and have a nonsubjective policy.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

The dad clearly wants his 15 minutes.

I'm thinking more likely he wants a big check

 

[DEA]

A gun in and of itself doesn't portray violence any more than a car portrays death and destruction. That's why districts that don't want guns on clothing will typically state "no weapons" in their policy.

I am going to respectfully disagree with your first sentence. We have pretty good evidence from many psychological studies indicating that weapon imagery increases violence/aggressive responses in people. The earliest study on this dates from 1967 (Berkowitz and LaPage), and found that being in a room with a gun (versus a control condition with sports equipment) led to experimental participants giving a higher level of shocks (ostensibly) to another research participant. There is a decent write-up of this line of research here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect. Increasing the level of aggression in a classroom is not something I think teachers (or students, for that matter) would appreciate.

 

[foreUT]

Haven't read the entire seven pages, but why is the school not addressing the issue with the press, etc., unless they are worried they trampled some First Amendment rights?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I am going to respectfully disagree with your first sentence. We have pretty good evidence from many psychological studies indicating that weapon imagery increases violence/aggressive responses in people. The earliest study on this dates from 1967 (Berkowitz and LaPage), and found that being in a room with a gun (versus a control condition with sports equipment) led to experimental participants giving a higher level of shocks (ostensibly) to another research participant. There is a decent write-up of this line of research here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect. Increasing the level of aggression in a classroom is not something I think teachers (or students, for that matter) would appreciate.

Um yeah, sounds like a load of crap to me.

 

[DEA]

Um yeah, sounds like a load of crap to me.

Is there something in particular that causes you to dismiss the results of 50+ scientific studies on the issue? I am happy to discuss the methodology, or the conclusions, but you're going to have to be a little more specific, if you don't mind.

 

[chobie]

Haven't read the entire seven pages, but why is the school not addressing the issue with the press, etc., unless they are worried they trampled some First Amendment rights?

Well for one thing, schools can't discuss incidents regarding juveniles because they have to protect the kid's privacy.

 

[Granny square]

Is there something in particular that causes you to dismiss the results of 50+ scientific studies on the issue? I am happy to discuss the methodology, or the conclusions, but you're going to have to be a little more specific, if you don't mind.

That was a psyc today article. Really? Maybe Wikipedia has some too...

Better question. Is there more gun violence in communities where hunting is prevalent? Bet not.

 

[Granny square]

Well for one thing, schools can't discuss incidents regarding juveniles because they have to protect the kid's privacy.

They can discuss their policy without disclosing information about the kid.

 

[chobie]

They can discuss their policy without disclosing information about the kid.

The policy is public record. What's to discuss? It's already been printed verbatim in the media.

What they can't discuss is the details of the incident that led to the arrest. So, we'll just have to take the dad's word that his son's behavior was beyond reproach?

 

[DEA]

That was a psyc today article. Really? Maybe Wikipedia has some too...

Better question. Is there more gun violence in communities where hunting is prevalent? Bet not.

I just thought it would be a quicker read giving an overview of the relevant studies than this meta-analysis, which is in the flagship journal of the field of social psychology: http://www.psychwiki.com/dms/wiki/uploadedfiles/other/Carlson1990.pdf

The Psych Today article only summarized the findings of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Those pieces of research are where the science behind this lies. Psych Today didn't undertake the research, the blogger only summarized the findings.

 

[yoopermom]

OP here, very interesting and fairly respectful discussion so far, I'm proud of y'all DIS!

Here, the tshirt would have been absolutely no big deal. We probably have more members of the NRA than not in our county. I discussed it with DS, and he just rolled his eyes, and said, "the kid shouldn't have argued, that's what got him in trouble". Ever since he was young, he's had tshirts that are and aren't appropriate for school, and he understands that. He also understands that when he goes to a big city college next year standards will be different.

It's interesting to read all your perspectives!

Terri

 

[sunshinehighway]

Haven't read the entire seven pages, but why is the school not addressing the issue with the press, etc., unless they are worried they trampled some First Amendment rights?

Even if the school could discuss this specific incident , the father was meeting with the principal today. Why go to the media before both sides have had a chance to discuss it with one another?

 

[Granny square]

Even if the school could discuss this specific incident , the father was meeting with the principal today. Why go to the media before both sides have had a chance to discuss it with one another?

Because the son had been charged. That doesn't bring out the best in parents. Lol, I'm pretty sure he was just pissed off and got all self righteous, but that is just based on my general observations in the reactions of people in general when confronted with "unfair." Or the media contacted him because someone else who was offended called them.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Is there something in particular that causes you to dismiss the results of 50+ scientific studies on the issue? I am happy to discuss the methodology, or the conclusions, but you're going to have to be a little more specific, if you don't mind.

Any study clearly designed to reach a specific conclusion is automatically questionable.

Edit: and your connection between this study and the school policy is at best a stretch.

 

[DEA]

That was a psyc today article. Really? Maybe Wikipedia has some too...

Better question. Is there more gun violence in communities where hunting is prevalent? Bet not.

Any study clearly designed to reach a specific conclusion is automatically questionable.

Edit: and your connection between this study and the school policy is at best a stretch.

I'm not sure how a study that compares an experimental condition with a control condition and then elicits a difference in the outcome measure is designed to reach a specific conclusion. Participants were randomly assigned to condition. The data come have come out the other way in that and any of the 50+ other studies on the same topic. Overall, it is a supported conclusion based on the data.

Take another study: People honked at a stoplight more often if the car in front of them had a gun in a gun rack in the back window than if it did not. One might think that people might be less aggressive (less honking) if the person in front is armed. But they are more aggressive (more honking).

I think, at best, my connection suggests a rational basis for the school making a decision that they are free to make on an arbitrary basis. Your assertion was that a gun does not portray violence. The research suggests that it makes people more likely to act in an aggressive/violent manner.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Setting the validity of your "study" aside, you still didn't make the connection.

I'm sure there are plenty of studies that show the presence of beautiful women causes a chemical reaction in hetero males. So, by your logic, any t-shirt that would show a picture of a female is obviously "portraying sex". It matters not that the picture is of a fully clothed woman, nor that the picture doesn't put her in any sort of suggestive pose, nor show her in any activity at all. No, the mere presence of a picture of this female must in fact be a "portrayal of sex", right?

See how silly that sounds?

 

[DEA]

Setting the validity of your "study" aside, you still didn't make the connection.

I'm sure there are plenty of studies that show the presence of beautiful women causes a chemical reaction in hetero males. So, by your logic, any t-shirt that would show a picture of a female is obviously "portraying sex". It matters not that the picture is of a fully clothed woman, nor that the picture doesn't put her in any sort of suggestive pose, nor show her in any activity at all. No, the mere presence of a picture of this female must in fact be a "portrayal of sex", right?

See how silly that sounds?

1. It's not my study. It's over 50 studies in the extant scientific literature.

2. If the image of a gun increases the level of violent actions, as the studies show, then having that image on a shirt that is seen by a class full of students (or multiple classes of students), then does it not make sense that seeing the imagery of a gun would increase violent actions? So, it is not just portraying violence, it is, in fact, leading to an increase in violent behavior.

3. Regarding your analogy: I do not know the literature on this as well as I know the literature on the gun issue. The studies I do know suggest that the material has to be sexually explicit to lead to outcomes that are generally considered negative (early activity, casual and/or unprotected activity). So, unless the imagery were explicit, I do not see why it would be a concern for the school.

 

[Granny square]

1. It's not my study. It's over 50 studies in the extant scientific literature.

2. If the image of a gun increases the level of violent actions, as the studies show, then having that image on a shirt that is seen by a class full of students (or multiple classes of students), then does it not make sense that seeing the imagery of a gun would increase violent actions? So, it is not just portraying violence, it is, in fact, leading to an increase in violent behavior.

3. Regarding your analogy: I do not know the literature on this as well as I know the literature on the gun issue. The studies I do know suggest that the material has to be sexually explicit to lead to outcomes that are generally considered negative (early activity, casual and/or unprotected activity). So, unless the imagery were explicit, I do not see why it would be a concern for the school.

Pt looked for studies that replicated what they wanted to say and promote.

Show me a study that says there is more gun violence in areas where hunting and guns are the norm. IF the presence of guns or gun pictures makes for more violence this should be easily proven.