Should this be allowed in High School? (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

Is that common place nowadays? Where?

Methinks you're hanging with the wrong crowd.

--
H

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Holadem,

I am talking about young children. Most (A vast majority from what I see all around) find it acceptable to fart and make obscene noises anywhere as that's all these new age cartoons seem to do. Many teens do it too and then just laugh about it. You should have seen a Christmas Party I went to.

Though I have come across many adults who do the same thing. Of course they are usually of the silent variety and they just pretend it wasn't them. I mean there are situations where you can't just hold it, but 5 times a night?

Unless they have some kind of medical disorder, I find that just ridiculous.

 

[MarkHastings]

Man you guys are way too literal. I'm not saying the word can NEVER be said in a classroom. I'm just saying that if it is said, it should be said in a mature manner, relating to a clinical scenario. Saying it for shock value is not appropriate at all.

Example: (I was hoping not to have to explain this, but I guess I have to) If a teacher points out a penis and asks the class what it is...if the student answers "Penis" then that would be acceptable, but if the class then starts chanting "penis" or if a kid calls another kid a "penis" then I would say it would need to be stopped.

In other words, the context in which the word is used is what deems it 'offensive' or not.

 

[Richard Kim]

Actually, the majority of the time kids use the slang term rather than the clinical term. For example, they would be more than likely say "dick", "pussy", or "shit" than "penis", "vagina", or "feces."

 

[Lynda-Marie]

It sounds to me like the "extra orders" for more buttons and tee shirts is a knee jerk reaction to an "infringement" of free speech/expression rights that these students just don't get. There is a LOT of misunderstanding about the limits of free speech, and many people jump on the "facist" bandwagon whenever they feel their (misunderstood) rights are being limited.

As mentioned by one poster above, wearing a tee shirt or button that reads "I hate niggers" is free speech, too. However, such "free speech" is criminal, since it promotes hate crimes against African Americans.

For whatever sociological reason, a slogan like "I (heart) my Vagina" will be taken as offensive to some people. Were I to look at something like that, I would think, "Okay, you love part of your body, what is the point you are trying to make?"

I agree that something like "Ask me about a battered man/woman" would definitely provoke more intelligent thought or positive action.

Bottom line, maybe the school should try opening an intelligent dialogue with the students to explain WHY this is not covered under their First Amendment rights. Or better yet, look into starting an American Government program in school so that the students actually understand their constitutional rights in context, instead of assuming that they can say or do whatever they want, because it is protected under the constitution.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

It's definitely reprehensible but I don't think, in the US, that it's illegal.

 

[WillG]

Right, what good is a slogan like that if it is ambiguous enough to provoke a response other than what is intended?

If these girls decided instead to ask the administration if they could distribute a flyer around the school to raise awareness of battered women and inform others what they could do to help and were denied, then, I think complaints and protests would be way more justified.

At the risk of exposing some prejudice on my part, I would be very interested to see a picture of these girls as they would go on a normal school day. I might get a bit more "insight" that way.

 

[Henry Carmona]

Some of you are way out there.

The point isnt that Sponge Bob doesnt say it, or that he says other words. ITs that you wont hear that kind of talk on a "real" kids show.

As mentioned, its all for shock value and thats what gets peoples attention. That kind of shock value has no place in schools.

Im glad the administration has more sense than these kids or we'd all be assbackwards.

 

[Holadem]

It's not a crime to express hate for any person or group, nor should it be.

--
H

 

[Adam.Heckman]

It's an act of civil disobediance. I think that they are acting in a very mature matter. Perhaps they've been reading Socrates who believe in the authority above all else. In fact he died (drank himself some hemlock) as opposed to leaving his state against their wishes after being condemned on an account of corrupting the youth by questioning them.

He also believed that if a law was unjust, that protesting that law through non-violent disobediance was just. It's a way to start a dialog (which clearly they've achieved) about what's acceptable and also to draw into attention the cause for which they say they support (although I agree, a button is the lamest way to do it).

As for my personal opinion: school have the right to keep out disruptive behaviors and props. If in the handbook it says that no aparrel can make reference to body parts, then it's fine that the kids were punished. However, I don't think that it was a distraction to the classroom. Maybe the first day she wore it, but then it's a good way for a social studies teacher to talk about society, or an english teacher to talk about theater. Math teachers wouldn't get it.

 

[MarkHastings]

If you protest something really wrong (like if the school required students to wear expensive clothing that you can't afford) that's ok, but if you protest something as trivial as not allowing a button, I see any protest as :rolleyes.

Protests are supposed to be for truly unjust situations. When you start protesting every little thing that you feel isn't the way you want things to be, then I have to disagree with your protest and have to see you as nothing but a whiner.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Going back to what I said before about "in your face" tactics, I think many people out there have no perspective on what "truly unjust" means. I once talked to a tree-hugger that was regaling me with his group's latest protest against a logging company. He was comparing their arm-in-arm walk down the logging roads with the civil rights marches of the 60's "in Selma and Montgomery", stating "the only thing missing was the fire hoses". I told him he would never be taken seriously if he continues to mock his own cause by equating the saving of trees with the demand for basic human rights. He looked at me blankly and said "but to me it's the same thing". I find this "feeding my own self-importance" attitude an eye opener on the question of why these "protesters" just don't get why people are annoyed/offended by them rather than sympathetic or impressed.

 

[Adam.Heckman]

While I appreciate your stance Mark and Jeff, I have to dis-agree. The civil rights marches of the 60 ended went hand in hand with getting and upholding the equal rights ammendments. What these students are doing, is trying to uphold their first amendment rights. While a new amendment will not come from their protest, the protest is directly tied to the 1st amendment right. I think it's of the utmost importance.
The anti-logging people weren't fighting to change or uphold the constitution, just protest legal logging.
The logging protest are for/against the environmental laws, however, these students are fighting for the FIRST ammendment right to free speech.

The students feel they are being oppressed. However, I will WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree that their 'opression' is NOTHING like racism and they should NOT draw a parallel.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

If they were being quashed from writing things in the school newspaper or were not allowed to make certain speeches at a school event, I would agree. But what these students are fighting for the is right to disrupt and subvert the reasons they are in school in the first place, i.e. to be educated in an orderly, uninterupted and uniform fashion, and they are doing so to the detriment of those students that just wish to get an education. School is not the place for everyone with an axe to grind to be given a pedestal to shout from. If they think it is, take it to the schoolboard or some other governing body and request a pedestal before you decide to disrupt. I don't think the story said the students asked for a closed seminar or open forum for their views and were subsequently denied. If that were the case, I would have sympathy, for that was exactly what happened with the denial of civil rights. From what I read, they just decided to wear inflammatory/offensive buttons and clothing in the name of support for their "cause" and only picked up the "first amendment" mantle after they were called on the carpet for their behavior. That is not a quashing of their "1st amendment rights", it is simply a method of maintaining order. I'm sure if the students had asked, the principal would have bent over backwards (given today's political climate) and given them any number of outlets to get their "free speech" heard, i.e. school assemblies, guest speakers, special classes, newspaper editorials - the possibilities are limitless. But they chose a disruptive and "shocking" method instead and found out just how receptive the general public is to their views when they are expressed in an "in your face" manner, that is to say not receptive at all. Way to stand up for your cause kids, you should be congratulated.:rolleyes

 

[MarkHastings]

The key word is "feel". The reason they 'feel' oppressed is because someone is telling them something they don't like.

The problem is, any rule, no matter how insignificant, is considered oppression. But as some of us agree, protesting certain kinds of oppression is ludicrous.

Are the students being oppressed? Technically yes...but protesting this is like protesting my right to walk into a grocery store without shoes on. Sometimes you just need to live with the rules and shut up.

Now I agree that protesting is worthy in particular cases, but you really shouldn't protest just because you're angry at the school. I would argue that the most of these student protestors are wearing these shirts just to tick off the school. I doubt any of them are TRULY fighting for free-speech.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I'm a freshman in college right now. I think they shouldn't be allowed to wear the buttons for several reasons:

1) It's distracting to other students
2) School, especially public free education, serves to educate students, not give them a soapbox to speak on
3) They'll have plenty of time to talk about their vaginas in college

Frankly, I think these girls should just give up. I don't see the point in what they're doing.

 

[Adam.Heckman]

I will ABSOLUTELY agree that there are much better ways to get your message out. Such as editorials, guest speakers and the school board, and my feelings (also) is that they didn't go those routes. I also agree with it'd be more to their benefit to shut up and put the buttons away - pick your fights and make it something more worthwhile.

However, they should be allowed to voice their opinion.

I certainly don't agree with the crazy people outside planned parenthood yelling 'sinner' at the girls walking in, but I firmly stand by their right to do so. Would it be more productive to join a couseling clinic and prevent the problem instead of yell at it? Sure. Do they have to? No.

I dont' agree with the kids route, but it's the route they have taken and I believe that they can and should if it's deemed necessary. (some people didn't deem the vietnam or civil rights demonstrations needed).

As far as the 'distrupting the educational process' line... I'm sure that it's not being interupted. As I posted before, maybe the first day she wore it, people may ask her what's up, but it's not going to turn a classroom into anarchy. And it's also a platform for teachers to educate from... use it as a springboard to talk about social issues and the like.

My gut feeling here is that we're just going to disagree on this one.

 

[Henry Carmona]

The planned parenthood people arent in a public school, paid for by my tax dollars, disrupting my childs education. Maybe some of them ARE involved in counseling as well.

This was a disruption to the school on the first day and especially now after the fact.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

BUt the majority of the Civil Rights marchers and the war protesters who were not just out to meet "chicks" (there were a lot of them) exhausted every civil/legal way of getting their message out before they took to civil disobedience. It was the denial of their civil rights (in all ways) that led to the marches in the streets. These young ladies did not start by requesting a legitimate forum for an honest discussion of the very important issue of domestic violence. They didn't petition the school, make up any flyers, write any speeches, request any assemblies, volunteer at any shelters or even set up a table in the lunchroom for an ad-hoc discussion. They did no more work than it took to say to themselves "oops, be carefull you don't stick yourself" and "left arm, left sleeve, right arm, right sleeve, head goes in the middle", all to shock people with a "dirty" word that says nothing about the serious issue they proclaim to care about.

If they did the groundwork beforehand, like MLK did, I'd agree. But in this case they are about as hardworking for their cause as the war protesters that went "to meet chicks" ... and about as dedicated.

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't agree either, but I don't believe they should protest by breaking the rules that were put in place.

I guess I just don't see why you have to keep breaking the rules to get your point acorss. If the students wanted the right to wear the buttons, there are other ways of protesting the rule, other than breaking the rule (and taking it even a step farther by mass producing shirts).