Posted on 10/13/2009 12:28:37 PM PDT by motoman
A Christian middle-school student is suing his school district after a principal ordered him to remove a T-shirt bearing the message "Abortion is not health care" on the day of President Obama's speech to schoolchildren.
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court against the West Shore School District in Lewisberry, Pa., Oct. 5 on behalf of a male, Christian middle-school student identified as E.B.
The boy's parents, identified as the Boyers, said they were concerned about the president's speech and the national health-care debate, including reported funding of abortion within proposed legislation.
"[T]he Boyers, like many others, felt that President Obama was bypassing them and speaking directly to their children without their permission," the complaint states. "… Like many others, the Boyers struggled with whether they should send their children to school on that day. E.B. attended school and decided to voice his religious viewpoint as it relates to the issue of abortion."
The boy wore the T-shirt to his classes at Crossroads Middle School and said he received no complaints until his fifth-period teacher ordered him to go to the principal's office to determine whether the shirt was "appropriate."
E.B. claims he was immediately told to remove his shirt "because it might insult somebody."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yes - especially the current administration which attempted to insert itself directly into the classroom with a set of premeditated “lesson plans”, that if not for responsible parents, would have sailed through without a peep.
When this government stops with pushing their policy oriented agenda in the classroom, then our kids can feel free to stop their “disruptive” form of response to this indoctrination.
Until the bias is put into check, the t-shirt slogans will continue from the christian right.
Be an adult. It is the parents who must organize and fight this, school board by school board. Or have hundreds of kids wear the shirts — but to have one, or a few, that just disrupts and is ineffective. It is a loser’s gambit. It empowers the enemy. The kids are very attuned as to who is ostracized and what ideas result in being ostracized. They kids get the message of what ideas NOT to have.
You have to give them the idea that your ideals are GOOD to have.
IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT, FIGHT TO WIN.
You may want to revisit the article at the link.
The school board was served and must now justify its actions in court.
They have a very weak case and looks like the kid and his family will most likely prevail.
No better way to win than in a court of law, especially after this administration started instigated this entire flap with attempting to stick their face and their policy directly into the classroom.
I view that as bad, the courts should stay out of such issues.
“I view that as bad, the courts should stay out of such issues.”
So after a student’s basic civil rights are violated, only after being forced to endure government propganda in the schools, just where to you suggest that this kid and his family gain restitution and also set a precedent for public schools to avoid future violations of the law?
No doubt that this case will be used as a precedent in their court hearing. Nice reminder regarding your posted link.
All ‘slogan’ and “clever pictures” or “emblem’ tshirts should be banned...period. They ARE disruptive.
Our city about 6 years ago decided to have a public school dress code...Basic navy or khaki pants ( girls could wear either pants or skirts), and khaki, navy or white shirts—either dress shirt or a collared golf shirt. The items were available at many reasonable stores ( and were much cheaper than the ‘latest “ fads) .
That last almost a year. Guess who killed the “dress code”?? Yup...the parents!
Homeschool. Or private school. More to another district. KEEP THE COURTS OUT OF RUNNING THE SCHOOLS.
What basic civil right did you mean, by the way — if you meant free speech, no. The courts are wrong in saying that students have free speech rights in school. You cannot read such a right into the First Amendment, it is a pernicious invention that has helped destabilize the school systems.
Yep, and kids of parents like that, my kid doesn’t have to worry about disrupting his studies. Again, just one of many reasons no child should be in a public school as anything other than a last option.
How about one of my son’s shirts that has: 2+2=5 For Extremely Large Values of 2?
[The LOCAL school can set a policy.]
So, when it comes to clothing, it is a LOCAL issue.
But, when it comes to the required education and classes, should that too be a LOCAL issue? Do you support No Child Left Behind? Do you think state-level mandated testing is a good thing?
[Failing those remedies the parents can sent the child to a different school — or homeschool.]
Wrong, most parents, by law CANNOT just send their child to a different school.
And great, if they want to homeschool, can they stop paying their property taxes too?
“What basic civil right did you mean, by the way — if you meant free speech, no. The courts are wrong in saying that students have free speech rights in school. You cannot read such a right into the First Amendment, it is a pernicious invention that has helped destabilize the school systems.”
Schools do not have the priviliage of defining what is considered to be free speech.
The courts do.
And when a school oversteps their boundry with respect to controlling forms of free speech, the courts step in. Just as they did in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Principal can’t set aside the first amendment on a whim either. The shirt stated a perfectly civil political position.
Principal, and others in that school, don’t have the right not to be offended by civil political discourse. Both the Constitution, despite its many court-induced distortions, and the case law indicate that political speech is still protected speech everywhere (except of course for the McCain/Feingold dreck). It doesn’t matter if you agree with it, so long as its civil - meaning that it doesn’t offend the sensibilities (silkscreen of an aborted fetus on the shirt would offend the sensibilities, for example).
Overtly leftist leaning faculties are a much greater threat to your child’s social development then what your kids wear to school. (vast majority of school teachers and principals voted for Obama)
On the other hand, nothing wrong with uniforms in a solid private christian school.
[The classroom is a highly structured environment.]
First, you obviously have not been in a high school classroom in several years! They are NOT highly structured environments!
More importantly, no other children complained nor was “disruption” the cause for the trip to the Principal’s office. It was a BAD judgment call by a teacher and the Principal; one they should have never made!
[...there is no tolerance for dreamy ideals. Let the kids learn, and not be tossed into chaos.]
Good idea, so are you advocating that we get rid of teaching evolution in the classroom? Do you think that sex-education to teenagers isn’t chaotic (let me tell you - it IS extremely chaotic)!!
[...to be disrespectful.]
And then you go all the way off the reservation by comparing this shirt to being “disrespectful.” Really? Are you serious? It isn’t like he was wearing a dress and pumps (which I am certain that the school would expect everyone to accept as his “natural” expression of himself) - he wore a shirt that the teacher and Principal didn’t like - PERIOD.
Yes. The States can set whatever standards they would like, but it's best left to the locality. Localities compete and cooperate for economic advantage and for pride (the good kind of pride), the less regulations imposed the more effective such competition and cooperation is.
There is no legitimate authority for Federal regulations or standards in the schools, save only national defense -- and that should be interpreted narrowly. The current Federal regulations, laws and bureaucracy are outlaw -- that is the Federal government was granted no charter to engage in such activity.
Do you support No Child Left Behind? Do you think state-level mandated testing is a good thing?
No I do not support No Child Left Behind, and only and sufficient to object that it is an illegal bill with no authority under the charter of authority granted the Federal Government in the Constitution. There are for practical purposes some provisions in it I agree with, actually the only one I know -- the allowance for teachers to use whatever force as they deem necessary to protect students. But that is just common sense. (Albeit common sense is highly impaired these days.)
States have the authority to establish standardized testing, or other performance metrics, state by state.
Still I do not like, in general, standardized testing -- it becomes either faddish or a drudgery, depending on the mood of the time. I think of NY Regents of forty years ago as an example of a drudgery, and the modern national standardized tests as an example of politically faddish year-to-year changes. The cohort of educators that developed those tests are know retiring -- the tests are about to enter, have entered, a downward spiral that will end in useless drudgery (imo).
Local is best. More adaptable. Less prone to catastrophic systemic failure. More adaptable for the INDIVIDUAL household, by moving or switching to private schools, or neighboring districts.
I would be interested in seeing a system where individual districts individually contracted for standardized testing from free market testing providers -- meaning no legislative or state bureaucratic regulation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.