OK, how about these arguments:
a) You implied in an earlier post that this violated his 1st Amendment rights. Unless the ceremony dress code was established via a law passed by congress, that statement is absurd and highlights your ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
b) Unless you can demonstrate that the dress code either was not enforced or reasonably wouldn't have been enforced in the same situation involving a white student, then the racial argument is de facto invalid.
c) A claim that an item (in this case a bolo tie) is a symbol of one's heritage is not sufficient cause to demand relief from the norms and conventions required by decorum. One must be able to demonstrate not only that his claim is factual but also that being denied the privilege of wearing the item forces the individual to sustain actual harm. To my knowledge, nothing in Cherokee heritage supports the bolo tie as being a historical talisman that is required for their well-being.
d) Familiarity in the form of past use of an item does not have any bearing on the dress code of a special event. Therefore, just because he was allowed to wear the bolo in the past under other circumstances is an argument without logical basis.
Are those arguments more to your liking?
Well actually that's not true. As the school system receives federal funding, it is a part of the federal government thereby required to follow the Constitution and not state law. To see the precedent for this, back in the 60s there were two kids that wore black armbands to school to protest the war (I believe). SCOTUS found in favor of the students that the school was violating their First Amendment rights.
b) Unless you can demonstrate that the dress code either was not enforced or reasonably wouldn't have been enforced in the same situation involving a white student, then the racial argument is de facto invalid.
I brought up the heritage factor more importantly. He should have the right to express his heritage as he sees fit. As a proud Southerner, I have to deal with that very concern on a daily basis. It has nothing to do with race
c) A claim that an item (in this case a bolo tie) is a symbol of one's heritage is not sufficient cause to demand relief from the norms and conventions required by decorum. One must be able to demonstrate not only that his claim is factual but also that being denied the privilege of wearing the item forces the individual to sustain actual harm. To my knowledge, nothing in Cherokee heritage supports the bolo tie as being a historical talisman that is required for their well-being.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. You statists will do anything to support and official won't you? Actual harm?!? It has nothing to do with actual harm, it has to do with his natural, not received by the government, rights! Locke anyone?
d) Familiarity in the form of past use of an item does not have any bearing on the dress code of a special event. Therefore, just because he was allowed to wear the bolo in the past under other circumstances is an argument without logical basis.
Well because he was allowed to wear the bolo at other school sponsored events the school has acceded to his right to wear it. But your argument is that the school can change its rules at any given time with no forewarning.
You know, screw it. It's really not worth it.