8th grader arrested,suspended for NRA tshirt

[chobie]

I'm not saying the kid did or did not throw a hissy fit - fact is we don't know. But the fact remains if they had a legitimate reason to keep him out of school longer than a day, he'd still be gone.

Or maybe they caved to his demanding daddy. Happens all the time in schools. Just because a kid deserves to be punished doesn't mean is going to happen

I served on a school board years ago and maybe my school district was different, but once a parent went to the media and had their lawyer calling, the school would almost always cave in to avoid the negative publicity and prolonged litigation. The only exception is when the student cause harm to another student.

 

[TinkerBelled]

For what it's worth, it really has nothing to do with the message for me, but far more to do with the image.

For example, I support the legalization and control of marijuana. However, if a kid showed up at school with a giant pot leaf on his shirt, I would support the school making him change. Alcohol is legal in this country, and I enjoy both wine and bourbon. If a kid showed up in a Jack Daniels shirt, I would support the school making him change.

However, if the shirt is truly an expression of ideology only, I draw the line. I believe in stronger background checks and a limit on large magazines; the NRA does not. However, if the kid showed up in a shirt that simply said NRA on it, I would hope the school would let him wear it. It might continue to be disruptive--and certainly, in an age of school shootings, I might find it really uncomfortable--but it's a debate about ideology, not a depiction of a weapon.

The shirt the kid was wearing was inappropriate. It prominently displayed a weapon. (It was also tacky as all get-out, but if we had a rule that all high school clothing had to be tasteful, I'm sure I would have been sent home on several occasions.)

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I believe they may very well have caved on the shirt.

No way would our district cave on the punishment. Not a chance.

 

[chobie]

I believe they may very well have caved on the shirt.

No way would our district cave on the punishment. Not a chance.

Yep, it happens all the time. The change their minds and cave in on punishments all the time. I've seen it happen with my own kid, my husband's students and in the school district I was on the board with.

 

[Granny square]

You would be wrong. Any report the school district wrote about his behavior would not be allowed to be published because, as a child, his privacy is protected. His name would have never been known had Daddy not wanted his 15 minutes.

And what difference does it make if its his biological daddy or not? Kind of insulting to step parents to imply they would be any less protective than a biological parent.

I suspect charges will be dropped too, but not because there was no probable cause, but for political expediency. If the DA is an elected office, which they usually are, they will not want to turn this into a gun rights issue regardless of whether the kid's behavior warranted arrest.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression about the step dad! In this day and age of broken families and poor male influences it was a positive in my book that the stepdad backed the kid so strongly.

With many years experience with the juvenile court system under my belt it would seem ridiculous to waste time on this. There are not endless supplies of time and manpower. And charleston wv has a crapload more problems than a kid who was a one time pain in the Burt at school. That is just not a priority.

 

[foreUT]

Its all about what "side" you're on. This would certainly be a different conversation if the kid had worn a shirt with an image of two men holding hands or kissing and a logo supporting marriage equality... Disregarding authority is only okay if you're on the "right" side of the issue.

Personally, I think the First Amendment should protect the right of teens, as well as, adults and I'm fine with t's saying Marriage Equality or I Support the NRA, no difference to me. JMHO.

 

[chobie]

I'm sorry if I gave that impression about the step dad! In this day and age of broken families and poor male influences it was a positive in my book that the stepdad backed the kid so strongly.

With many years experience with the juvenile court system under my belt it would seem ridiculous to waste time on this. There are not endless supplies of time and manpower. And charleston wv has a crapload more problems than a kid who was a one time pain in the Burt at school. That is just not a priority.

I completely agree with you there. He may have been acting like a jerk ( which I highly suspect he was), he may have behaved in a way the warranted arrest ( which I'm going to side with the LEO as I usually do) but at the end of the day letting this one die is the best result for all- it should have never been newsworthy in the first place.

On the flip side, people focusing on this kids right to broadcast his dad's political beliefs in school, should really take a backseat to the myriad of other issues/challenges facing students in school these days.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

A student will not dress or groom in a manner that disrupts the educational process or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of others. A student will not dress in a manner that is distractive or indecent, to the extent that it interferes with the teaching and learning process, including wearing any apparel that displays or promotes any drug-, alcohol- or tobacco-related product that is prohibited in school buildings, on school grounds, in school-leased or owned vehicles, and at all school-affiliated functions.


I personally do not see how the tshirt was against policy. It sounds like the teacher made a bigger deal with the tshirt then other students. Yes I would let my child wear that tshirt to school unless like other have said no guns on tshirts. He is an 8th grader I can see him being defensive which can be perceived as argumentative.
I see this more compared to someone wearing a PETA shirt many people agree rights of animals but many disagree with the way PETA does it. So what if a kid came in wearing a shirt saying People Eating Tasty Animal tshirt and the teacher was part of PETA so they argued with the student. Same thing just because the teacher doesn't agree with it doesn't make disruptive.

 

[Geoff_M]

After reading this thread, I have a few thoughts.

For starters, if this kid's dad opted to sue the school for the demand to "turn the shirt inside out", I have little doubt that the school would lose the lawsuit. Since Tinker, and Justice Abe Fortas' famous line that students are not required to "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate", our court system has time and again given a wide latitude for students to wear clothing expressing opinions about current social topics against the wishes of their teachers/principals. Here another recent example from Illinois. If those shirts weren't guaranteed to cause friction in the hallways and classrooms, I don't know what would.

If a lawsuit were to be filed in the case of the NRA shirt. I'd love to watch the lawyer for the school system try and make the legal argument that the action with regard to the shirt was just about the "weapon" and that a silk-screened gun on a T-shirt represented a real "threat" or "danger" to the school and its presence in the classroom was too disruptive to the learning environment to be allowed.

And as for the "NRA as Boogeyman" meme being expressed here. I just read an excellent "advice" piece for people that are interested in trying to successfully change the gun laws in this nation. It points to six fatal flaws that doomed the attempts to make such changes post-Newtown. One of those points deals with the vilification of the NRA. I think a de-policiticized version of that section is worth repeating here:

5. Treat the NRA As What They Are: Other American Citizens

The story from the media – and certainly from your leadership – is that the “powerful corporate lobby” of the NRA is so indomitable that they single-handedly bought and scared off politicians from supporting legislation that they actually believed was going to do some good. But aside from the questionable legislation, this narrative still falls short.

After gun control legislation was defeated this week, I opened a friend’s Facebook link to an unrelated article on _____, a popular leftist news and opinion site. The full screen poll that popped up before I could read the article asked: “DOES THE NRA CONTROL CONGRESS?” along with an urgent call to sign up for their mailing list to email-shame politicians.

The problem here is the complete dissociation of the NRA as an entity and its membership base. As someone who participated wholeheartedly in the Occupy movement and in the national campaign to expose ALEC – the group of politicians and corporate lobbyists who write laws together – I have no love for the influence of money on politics. But by making this narrative the dominant one, the left has missed a very, very important fact: the power of the NRA lies not in corporations, but in its membership.

The NRA definitely receives some contributions from the firearms manufacturers whose interests are tied up with their own. Of course they do. That’s how lobbying works: you pay people to take the time to represent your interests well to lawmakers, whether you’re a gunmaker contributing to the NRA or a high school teacher’s union paying The American Federation of Teachers lobbyists.

What you’re missing is that the vast portion of the NRA’s funds come not through corporate donors, but through contributions from average Americans. It was not a coincidence that between December 2012 and January 2013 the NRA grew 10,000 members every day, adding a full quarter-million new contributors to their roster since gun control reappeared in the national discussion last year. That’s just what happens when a populace that cares a lot about something gets mobilized. But the NRA – by which the (those that advocate gun law changes) should mean “the American citizens who comprise the NRA because they believe in gun rights” – has consistently been characterized as the heartless, monolithic boogeyman.

I have already mentioned the young man who was just this week suspended and arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school. How is this possible? How can the demonization of 5 million Americans engaged in strictly legal activity literally put a child in jail in 2013?

I hope that one thing this latest loss has taught you is that you cannot advance the discussion on gun policy by treating the NRA as if they were something other than the citizens who intentionally pay for them to do exactly what they do. (Even if members do have to grit their teeth at brash methods sometimes.) Your opponent is not the corporate profits of Ruger or Beretta, it is the beliefs and ideas and the resulting money of other citizens just like yourself.

 

[Granny square]

I completely agree with you there. He may have been acting like a jerk ( which I highly suspect he was), he may have behaved in a way the warranted arrest ( which I'm going to side with the LEO as I usually do) but at the end of the day letting this one die is the best result for all- it should have never been newsworthy in the first place.

On the flip side, people focusing on this kids right to broadcast his dad's political beliefs in school, should really take a backseat to the myriad of other issues/challenges facing students in school these days.

I don't see this as a "dads agenda" issue. But I live in an area where these are regular, happy clothing. Think of cabelas and he NRA as the hollister of Appalachia.

Maybe there was an attitude going into it, but the fact that the student population also could go grab one of the shirts or similar to "rebel" shows they are the norm.

I know this must seem weird to someone not from here but t is the least of my worries raising kids here. .

I'll quit trying to explain, but it is like me trying to understand the mindset of city life and some of the stuff I think is nutters or inappropriate.

I will also say that just like I don't care if a little boy wears a skull shirt to Sunday school I also don't have a problem with kids wearing shirts that express what they care about. It shouldn't be an issue. For any kid, lol, not just the ones I agree with.

 

[chobie]

I don't see this as a "dads agenda" issue. But I live in an area where these are regular, happy clothing. Think of cabelas and he NRA as the hollister of Appalachia.

Maybe there was an attitude going into it, but the fact that the student population also could go grab one of the shirts or similar to "rebel" shows they are the norm.

I know this must seem weird to someone not from here but t is the least of my worries raising kids here. .

I'll quit trying to explain, but it is like me trying to understand the mindset of city life and some of the stuff I think is nutters or inappropriate.

I will also say that just like I don't care if a little boy wears a skull shirt to Sunday school I also don't have a problem with kids wearing shirts that express what they care about. It shouldn't be an issue. For any kid, lol, not just the ones I agree with.

I think it's time that all schools ban all clothing with writing on it. We are a much more politically volatile and divisive society than were when I went to school in the 80's. They can discuss politics in class when it works with the lesson plans.

As for this not being Dad's issue -- I would like to know how much this kid knows about the Constitution, it's contents other than the 2nd Amendment and part of the 1st Amendment, it's history, and how its been interpreted by the courts, etc.

 

[Planogirl]

For what it's worth, it really has nothing to do with the message for me, but far more to do with the image.

For example, I support the legalization and control of marijuana. However, if a kid showed up at school with a giant pot leaf on his shirt, I would support the school making him change. Alcohol is legal in this country, and I enjoy both wine and bourbon. If a kid showed up in a Jack Daniels shirt, I would support the school making him change.

However, if the shirt is truly an expression of ideology only, I draw the line. I believe in stronger background checks and a limit on large magazines; the NRA does not. However, if the kid showed up in a shirt that simply said NRA on it, I would hope the school would let him wear it. It might continue to be disruptive--and certainly, in an age of school shootings, I might find it really uncomfortable--but it's a debate about ideology, not a depiction of a weapon.

The shirt the kid was wearing was inappropriate. It prominently displayed a weapon. (It was also tacky as all get-out, but if we had a rule that all high school clothing had to be tasteful, I'm sure I would have been sent home on several occasions.)

I agree. For me it's the image of the gun, not the letters NRA.

 

[Granny square]

In wv you are far more likely to die of a complication of obesity, diabetes, mesothelioma or even cancer related c8 exposure than by a hunting rifle. There is little to fear there excep what a person makes up in their own mind.

Making decisions based on what makes people uncomfortable is ridiculous. Because someone is always going to be bothered by something.

Tacky? Well I'd suspect some would see some of your stuff as tacky too. Again in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I agree. For me it's the image of the gun, not the letters NRA.

I asked my wife about our policy (she works in the principal's office), and she believes this would violate the "no weapons" policy at our school as the school not only bans weapons or anything that might be construed as one, but also art projects that portray weapons, making finger guns, etc. So technically, it wouldn't be a violation of the dress code, but rather the no weapons policy.

That said, she said she can't swear that kids haven't gotten away with similar shirts in the past. Hunting apparel is so common here, nobody bats an eye at it. Our own daughter has a shirt with a design of arrow heads on it hat she's worn to school and it's never occurred to my wife or I (until now) that that might somehow seem objectionable. D'OHH!

 

[Granny square]

I asked my wife about our policy (she works in the principal's office), and she believes this would violate the "no weapons" policy at our school as the school not only bans weapons or anything that might be construed as one, but also art projects that portray weapons, making finger guns, etc. So technically, it wouldn't be a violation of the dress code, but rather the no weapons policy.

That said, she said she can't swear that kids haven't gotten away with similar shirts in the past. Hunting apparel is so common here, nobody bats an eye at it. Our own daughter has a shirt with a design of arrow heads on it hat she's worn to school and it's never occurred to my wife or I (until now) that that might somehow seem objectionable. D'OHH!

Is your daughter an archer? My son has been making flint arrowheads and selling his handmade longbows for the last year.

 

[chobie]

I asked my wife about our policy (she works in the principal's office), and she believes this would violate the "no weapons" policy at our school as the school not only bans weapons or anything that might be construed as one, but also art projects that portray weapons, making finger guns, etc. So technically, it wouldn't be a violation of the dress code, but rather the no weapons policy.

That said, she said she can't swear that kids haven't gotten away with similar shirts in the past. Hunting apparel is so common here, nobody bats an eye at it. Our own daughter has a shirt with a design of arrow heads on it hat she's worn to school and it's never occurred to my wife or I (until now) that that might somehow seem objectionable. D'OHH!

I'm sure if someone at the school did find it objectionable your daughter would know how to react to that in a way that would not get her arrested.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Is your daughter an archer? My son has been making flint arrowheads and selling his handmade longbows for the last year.

Yes, but not nearly to that extent. That's really cool

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I'm sure if someone at the school did find it objectionable your daughter would know how to react to that in a way that would not get her arrested.

Yeah, I don't think my wife would need to call the police for that one

 

[Granny square]

Yes, but not nearly to that extent. That's really cool

It is pretty cool. He has at least one year's tuition already. not bad for 16.

Lol, wasn't trying to sell you one!

 

[shellybaxter]

The shirt wasn't against the policy. The teacher may have had a personal issue against it, but he rules don't mention guns.

A planned parenthood tshirt would be the same. Not against the rules. Some people object.

People need to mind their own business. And teach their kids to do the same. It should be a given that the teachers should teach not preach.

The policy is clear that clothing can not disrupt the educational process. If the shirt was causing other students to question this student or get upset - it would have caused a disruption. We were not there so we don't know, but it could easily have broken the policy. I have a 13 year old niece. She is passionate about what she "thinks" her polictics are. She hasn't really has a chance to fully develop her ideas yet, but she will fight like a bulldog if someone says something (or would wear something) against how she "believes"