8th grader arrested,suspended for NRA tshirt

[FayeW]

In a society where a kindergartener got suspended for biting his snack into a "gun like shape" , another was suspended for drawing a picture of a gun, and another for making a gun shape with his fingers, it is ridiculous that there is any debate on this thread, or support for the student. Everybody knows, images of guns are not allowed. I have no idea why, nobody was ever shot by a picture, a finger, or a peanut butter sandwich gun, but those are the rules school children must live by.

No question this kid chose the shirt to incite the attention he received. He should have known better, and his parents certainly knew better. T-shirt with just the slogan? No problem. T-shirt with an image of a gun? Action will be taken.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

In a society where a kindergartener got suspended for biting his snack into a "gun like shape" , another was suspended for drawing a picture of a gun, and another for making a gun shape with his fingers, it is ridiculous that there is any debate on this thread, or support for the student. Everybody knows, images of guns are not allowed. I have no idea why, nobody was ever shot by a picture, a finger, or a peanut butter sandwich gun, but those are the rules school children must live by.

No question this kid chose the shirt to incite the attention he received. He should have known better, and his parents certainly knew better. T-shirt with just the slogan? No problem. T-shirt with an image of a gun? Action will be taken.

Nobody's debating the kid's "right" to wear the shirt. It doesn't exist. The school makes the rules & they are free to change them on the fly as they see fit.

What's in question is whether or not it was spelled out specifically in the rules (the article indicates otherwise) ahead of time, whether or not the response by the police was appropriate, and whether or not this was any deliberate attempt to incite an incident.

And anyone who would assume either yes or no to any of these is doing just that - making an assumption. For all we know, the gun picture may have been just a tiny overlooked picture within the NRA logo:

Or not.

 

[chobie]

Nobody's debating the kid's "right" to wear the shirt. It doesn't exist. The school makes the rules & they are free to change them on the fly as they see fit.

What's in question is whether or not it was spelled out specifically in the rules (the article indicates otherwise) ahead of time, whether or not the response by the police was appropriate, and whether or not this was any deliberate attempt to incite an incident.

And anyone who would assume either yes or no to any of these is doing just that - making an assumption. For all we know, the gun picture may have been just a tiny overlooked picture within the NRA logo:

Or not.

Indeed, we don't know anything other than dad's side of the story. And we all know parents never overreact, misrepresent and/or exaggerate when they go running to the media over a perceived injustice that happened at school. After all the facts come out it always is exactly how the parent reported it to the media.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Nobody's debating the kid's "right" to wear the shirt. It doesn't exist. The school makes the rules & they are free to change them on the fly as they see fit.

What's in question is whether or not it was spelled out specifically in the rules (the article indicates otherwise) ahead of time, whether or not the response by the police was appropriate, and whether or not this was any deliberate attempt to incite an incident.

And anyone who would assume either yes or no to any of these is doing just that - making an assumption. For all we know, the gun picture may have been just a tiny overlooked picture within the NRA logo:



Or not.[/QUOTE]

I believe the kid is wearing the shirt in the pictures within the link. If not, there are other articles (with just the same information) that picture him in the shirt.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I believe the kid is wearing the shirt in the pictures within the link. If not, there are other articles (with just the same information) that picture him in the shirt.

I didn't see a pic in the initial story, but I did just now find a link from THAT story and the gun in that pic is indeed prominent.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I also see in the second link where the dad is trying to say he doesn't understand why the shirt is a big deal. He may as well give that up. The school gets to set the rules.

 

[Colleen27]

Here, it is clearly against dress code. Our code is pretty lax but specifically disallows clothing that depicts or references drugs, alcohol, weapons, sex, profanity, or violence.

But I suspect the suspension and arrest have more to do with the student's reaction when told the shirt was against the dress code than with the shirt itself, and we don't have nearly enough information to make a reasonable judgment on that count. Was this a first offense or has he worn the shirt, been disciplined for it, and continues to wear it to "make a point"? What was the content of his in-class argument with the teacher? Did he become angry or threatening? The shirt alone would probably be a "turn it inside out" offense, maybe a detention or in-school suspension if it was a repeat offense, but any response from the student or the than compliance would escalate the punishment.

 

[JLiz]

I'm a high school teacher and our students must wear uniforms but...

I completely support the student's right to wear the shirt.

The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines ( in which three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam) that:

"1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.

2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

I think this is an instance of obviously political speech. The student isn't advocating violence but specifically advocating for the preservation of a current constitutional right.

"While I disagree with the student's political viewpoint, I 100% support his first amendment right to express it."

Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.
Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

 

[Schmeck]

I'm a high school teacher and our students must wear uniforms but...

I completely support the student's right to wear the shirt.

The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines ( in which three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam) that:

"1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.

2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

I think this is an instance of obviously political speech. The student isn't advocating violence but specifically advocating for the preservation of a current constitutional right.

"While I disagree with the student's political viewpoint, I 100% support his first amendment right to express it."

Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.
Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

I think you are wrong - and because it has become an issue for the school, your #2 and #3 applies. Also, comparing a plain black armband to an image of a weapon is quite a stretch.

 

[sarahjones86]

"An eithe grade student from West Virginia has been arrested, suspended and faces charges for wearing an NRA T-shirt with the image of a firearm and the words "Protect Your Right" printed on it to school."

The article goes on to quote the school dress code:

"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 taught in middle and high schools for years. Basically, if the kid's shirt caused a disturbance, we would ask them to turn it inside out or change it.

While it is a sensitive time for gun supporters, it is still *legal*, so should the teacher have argued with him about it?

What if the tshirt would have read that he supported some other legal, but hot topic, like abortion?

I know it's tough for the DIS, but let's try to keep the discussion specific to what should be allowed to be worn in schools vs the hot topics themselves...

Terri

I don't think he should have been arrested. Our First Amendment Right is freedom of speech/expression. I think arresting him was unconstitutional. Children have rights, just like we have rights. It is unfair to arrest a person for their beliefs.

With that said, I see where the police and school administration is coming from. High School is a place where fights can easily start over hot topics like that (you should've been in my speech & debate club, junior year... ). Again, I don't think he should have been arrested, maybe asked to change his shirt instead?

Just my two cents.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I don't think he should have been arrested. Our First Amendment Right is freedom of speech/expression. I think arresting him was unconstitutional. Children have rights, just like we have rights. It is unfair to arrest a person for their beliefs.

With that said, I see where the police and school administration is coming from. High School is a place where fights can easily start over hot topics like that (you should've been in my speech & debate club, junior year... ). Again, I don't think he should have been arrested, maybe asked to change his shirt instead?

Just my two cents.

He was arrested for "arguing". We don't have the school's description of what that means. Was he invading the teacher's space? Making explicit or implied threats? How long was instruction stopped? We just don't know.

I have no idea what happened, so I have no idea whether he should have been arrested. I will say that being a middle school or high school teacher, can be very challenging. You can be in situations with angry, physically threatening people who are bigger and stronger than you. None of the things you would do if faced with this situation in public are options. You can't respond back in anger, you can't put your hands on them, and you can't walk out of the room. You've also got to keep in mind that you've got 20 other young people, who may be scared, or may be excited by what's going on, and they're watching. How much they respect you and your boundaries tomorrow depends on what they see you do today. As I said, I don't know what happened, but I can absolutely imagine situations that can move very quickly from a quiet request to go to the restroom and turn a shirt inside out, to the point where calling a school resource officer makes sense.

 

[JLiz]

Also, comparing a plain black armband to an image of a weapon is quite a stretch.

I don't think it is at all. His shirt was not advocating for the use of a weapon, it was advocating for a constitutionally protected right.

If he had been wearing a shirt that promoted violence, promoted hunting, promoted specific brands or types of guns I could see your point. But, I think, in this particular instance, this is clearly a case of political speech given the temporal context; the SCOTUS has made it clear that students' political speech is protected.

 

[chobie]

I don't think it is at all. His shirt was not advocating for the use of a weapon, it was advocating for a constitutionally protected right.

If he had been wearing a shirt that promoted violence, promoted hunting, promoted specific brands or types of guns I could see your point. But, I think, in this particular instance, this is clearly a case of political speech given the temporal context; the SCOTUS has made it clear that students' political speech is protected.

It's subject to a balancing act and if the school can show its disruptive to the educational environment then the schools needs trump the students first amendment rights. Minors are not afforded the full protection of the constitution, e.g., they are not entitled a jury trial, their 4th amendment rights at school are quite watered down, etc.

Gun violence at schools was not an issue during the 60's. it is now and banning shirts depicting items that are banned by the schools would most likely not be deemed to violate the students 1st Amendment rights.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I don't think it is at all. His shirt was not advocating for the use of a weapon, it was advocating for a constitutionally protected right.

If he had been wearing a shirt that promoted violence, promoted hunting, promoted specific brands or types of guns I could see your point. But, I think, in this particular instance, this is clearly a case of political speech given the temporal context; the SCOTUS has made it clear that students' political speech is protected.

I'm failing to see why a pro hunting shirt would NOT be protected, but a pro 2nd amendment shirt would. That makes no sense.

Now, I will also say that while I don't have a problem with his shirt, and while I appreciate your 1st Amendment comments, if the school has a "no pictures of weapons" policy, I would support that (it does not appear to be clear here). It would nit be a rule "I" would create, but would support. The NRA site has other t-shirts with the same message, but no picture of a gun.

 

[Granny square]

I had a 5 yo wear a t-shirt with a skull and crossbones to Sunday school a few weeks ago. Sometimes parents don't think or just don't pay attention to what their kids wear.

Our district has a dress policy from kindergarten thru 12th grade. Each fall and spring parents and students are reminded of it. By 8th this kid should have the thing memorized. Sounds like he wanted to push the envelope, similar to a girl wearing hootchie shorts to school at the 1st sign of spring.

Why on earth are you judging a skull and crossbones shirt on a five year old inappropriate. If a little guy came into my ss class in one I wouldn't have thought twice.

The shirt is only disruptive if the school has a written policy against it. Not sharing the policy has nothing to do with privacy laws either. If there is a written policy then the student should have complied.

 

[JLiz]

and if the school can show its disruptive to the educational environment then the schools needs trump the students first amendment rights. Minors are not afforded the full protection of the constitution

Yes, but it most show substantial disruption and the passive wearing of a t shirt with a political message is not a substantial disruption.

I'll give an example and I'll make it personal: I teach biology. If this student were to stand up in the middle of class and start shouting about his 2nd amendment rights while I was teaching about cell membranes and cell walls, then he would be disruptive and the need for order and discipline would override his 1st amendment rights. However, simply sitting in class while wearing the shirt does not prevent me from delivering the lesson.

As to your second point, I agree students do lose some of the protections afforded by the Constitution. However, the SCOTUS has ruled that political speech is not one of them

 

[JLiz]

I'm failing to see why a pro hunting shirt would NOT be protected, but a pro 2nd amendment shirt would. That makes no sense.

I don't think a pro hunting shirt is political in nature. I think it is advocating a particular hobby. In that case, I would abide by a "no weapons" rule for clothing. I could also see how a rule banning clothing against skeet shooting, archery, or fencing could be ruled constitutional. I think that would be a silly and extreme stance for a school to take but I don't think it violates students' right to expression of political speech.

 

[chobie]

Yes, but it most show substantial disruption and the passive wearing of a t shirt with a political message is not a substantial disruption.

I'll give an example and I'll make it personal: I teach biology. If this student were to stand up in the middle of class and start shouting about his 2nd amendment rights while I was teaching about cell membranes and cell walls, then he would be disruptive and the need for order and discipline would override his 1st amendment rights. However, simply sitting in class while wearing the shirt does not prevent me from delivering the lesson.

As to your second point, I agree students do lose some of the protections afforded by the Constitution. However, the SCOTUS has ruled that political speech is not one of them

Yes, but the image of the banned item puts it into a different category. This would be more comparable to the bong hits for Jesus category IMO.

But I'm sure this one will get litigated so we'll just have to see what the courts rule. The case you cited has been watered down by the lower federal courts quite a bit over the last few decades. And the trend is to side with the schools and its orderly operation.

It's illegal to have guns at school.

 

[jodifla]

Why on earth are you judging a skull and crossbones shirt on a five year old inappropriate. If a little guy came into my ss class in one I wouldn't have thought twice.

The shirt is only disruptive if the school has a written policy against it. Not sharing the policy has nothing to do with privacy laws either. If there is a written policy then the student should have complied.

Because it's death and destruction. Not appropriate for school or Sunday school. It would be prohibited in my district.

 

[Planogirl]

I think that schools can set dress codes and have successfully defended the right to do so. I don't see this as any different.