Seventh Grader Sues School Over Right to Wear Pro-Life T-Shirt

[Marcus Bryant]

So your child has the right to free speech until a school bureaucrat is offended.

[sabar]

I think individual liberty is important, but the shirt was inappropriate for the setting. The girl's peers have no idea of what abortion means and entails, she is just a mouthpiece for her parent. This is something for high school where angry teens will actually know what they are debating about to some degree, not for very impressionable 7-11 year old kids.

Honestly, this is a common sense issue. The second the mother send her kid to middle school with that shirt she knew what would happen. There is no point in trying to debate this issue on whether or not children have or deserve rights and the state's role in acting as guardian. Why? Because those things are highly ingrained in the system and will not change in 200 years.

As it stands, in our culture, wearing it was inappropriate to her peers and grounds for suppression of free speech. I see no advantage in a bunch of prepubescent children debating things like war and abortion when they know nothing of them. They are two very harsh realities that require a mature understanding of life to seriously discuss. Children are innocent, impressionable, and very naive.

Once in high school is where things should be different. That is the obvious transition to adulthood, voting, driving, working, taxes, and actually needing your rights to participate in the political process. This is where grounds to sue would of been reasonable.

Notice that children have no right to bear arms, to buy legal drugs, to make medical decisions for themselves, to consent to sex with adults and so on. The rights to free speech on school grounds have been suppressed for a very long time. The girl would of also been ordered to not wear skimpy clothing on any grounds and entire outfits if there is a dress code. I myself was witness to plenty of kids that had clothes taken for having innuendo, nudity, profanity, violence, gore, and many things much more real/personal than abortion is.

Parents want to keep their children away from influence, from propaganda. Whether it is drugs/sex/gangs or even political views, parents have a natural desire to raise a child in their image. When little Johnny comes home shouting anti-war slogans in his military family, the parents will feel like they have failed. When the role of guardianship is passed to the state, there is little doubt that parents want the state to treat their children like any parent does, with a watchful eye and a disciplined system that follows rules.

I think I've hit most of the points on why this girl's action isn't normal in our society or even accepted. Thems the breaks. I'm more concerned about securing my own freedom than that of our children. While the state can indoctrinate anything they want in a child, the parent should still retain much more influence. I went to public school and I'm no welfare begging socialist. But this is Texas and NISD is a good district. For example, they really emphasized that the civil war was about state rights and not just slavery like most schools would teach. I attribute that and other things from geographic location and a good area to live in general. Plus very good parents.

Anywho, nice to see taxpayer money will go to paying state attorneys or to some kid's genius mom instead of something productive. Face it, this isn't going to make one person a libertarian, just a little girl rich.

[LnGrrrR]

Within limits. Your argument would say that parents would be incapable of removing certain rights and privileges of their children. This would prevent a parent from grounding their child for what the child says. After all, a kid telling a parent they are a ing moron is an example of free speech (and a good example of a kid that needs a whipping).

That's why I'm willing to limit it to Cons utionally protected things like freedom of speech, especially in a situation where the school is acting in loco parentis. If a parent allows a child to go to school in clothing, why should the school be able to determine better?

Unless it can be shown that the clothing was worn ONLY to disrupt or offend, I don't think they should. (Even then, I would lean towards protecting the First Amendment in nearly all cases.)

Didn't a student win a case where he was handing out flyers in school, which the school tried to prevent, ruling his First Amendment rights had precedent? I believe there was, but I can't remember the case at this moment.

[Wild Cobra]

This is something for high school where angry teens will actually know what they are debating about to some degree, not for very impressionable 7-11 year old kids.

Didn't this article say she was a seventh grader? I remeber girls being pretty well informed about the ways of life back then.

Honestly, this is a common sense issue. The second the mother send her kid to middle school with that shirt she knew what would happen.

That requires the assumption the parents knew what she wore that day. I clearly remeber girls in school wearing clothes to school that they shed and stuffed in their lockers, not wanting their parents to see them wearing the 'daisy dukes' and tied shirts.

As it stands, in our culture, wearing it was inappropriate to her peers and grounds for suppression of free speech. I see no advantage in a bunch of prepubescent children debating things like war and abortion when they know nothing of them. They are two very harsh realities that require a mature understanding of life to seriously discuss. Children are innocent, impressionable, and very naive.

Maybe, but I still haven't seen a picture of the shirt to jump to that conclusion.

I thought you had an open mind. Am I wrong?

The rights to free speech on school grounds have been suppressed for a very long time. The girl would of also been ordered to not wear skimpy clothing on any grounds and entire outfits if there is a dress code. I myself was witness to plenty of kids that had clothes taken for having innuendo, nudity, profanity, violence, gore, and many things much more real/personal than abortion is.

But was it necessary for them to do it the way they did?

Parents want to keep their children away from influence, from propaganda. Whether it is drugs/sex/gangs or even political views, parents have a natural desire to raise a child in their image. When little Johnny comes home shouting anti-war slogans in his military family, the parents will feel like they have failed. When the role of guardianship is passed to the state, there is little doubt that parents want the state to treat their children like any parent does, with a watchful eye and a disciplined system that follows rules.

Well, you must not have any kids in these modern schools. They are so filled with political crap, it's ridiculous. If anything, I would assume this girl was rebelling against something a teacher said, trying to indoctrinate her.

I'm more concerned about securing my own freedom than that of our children. While the state can indoctrinate anything they want in a child, the parent should still retain much more influence.

My God. You just lost my respect there. Kids aren't always on the best of terms with their parents, and if the school says something different that what the parents believe, who do they tend to believe?

Anywho, nice to see taxpayer money will go to paying state attorneys or to some kid's genius mom instead of something productive. Face it, this isn't going to make one person a libertarian, just a little girl rich.

Maybe the schools should start being school, and not indoctrination centers.

[LnGrrrR]

Sabar,

You bring up a lot of good points. However, I feel (and no, I'm not a parent yet, so my views on this might change) that it is the parent's responsibility to install their values on their children. If you don't want your kid shouting anti-war stuff when he gets home, you should discuss it with him/her and tell him/her why.

I think children are smarter at younger ages than we give them credit for, and I don't think we have to wait for a magical age to get them to start critically thinking. Heck, at six, my mother was divorced. At eight, I was having conversations with her about the person who she was looking to become my new father. Certainly that's as important as some of the 'big issues'?

If more parents discussed these things with their children, instead of just hoping no one ever mentioned it in school, I think we'd be better off as a society.

[sam1617]

That's why I'm willing to limit it to Cons utionally protected things like freedom of speech, especially in a situation where the school is acting in loco parentis. If a parent allows a child to go to school in clothing, why should the school be able to determine better?

Unless it can be shown that the clothing was worn ONLY to disrupt or offend, I don't think they should. (Even then, I would lean towards protecting the First Amendment in nearly all cases.)

Didn't a student win a case where he was handing out flyers in school, which the school tried to prevent, ruling his First Amendment rights had precedent? I believe there was, but I can't remember the case at this moment.

If the parent signs the form acknowledging and accepting the rules concerning clothing, then they are accepting the school's judgement on the matter. They shouldn't let their kid where clothes that violate that, and if they do, they should be prepared for the consequences.

And if the school had no previous rule concerning this, or had not notified the parent of it, then I agree with you.

[jman3000]

I remember I refused to wear a "No BULL he's back" shirt (in reference to Michael Jordan's first comeback in 1996) to school because I thought it was bad language.

[LnGrrrR]

If the parent signs the form acknowledging and accepting the rules concerning clothing, then they are accepting the school's judgement on the matter. They shouldn't let their kid where clothes that violate that, and if they do, they should be prepared for the consequences.

And if the school had no previous rule concerning this, or had not notified the parent of it, then I agree with you.

Ah, but what if the child has a message to send? Do you feel that the school should have the right to quash free speech if the parents sign that form?

Does the child have no say until they're 18?

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, the purpose of public schools is to turn out predictable, obedient, nationalistic, gullible, and expendable citizen-consumers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

After reading most of the posts against the school's reactions I can assume that you fools feel that 7th graders are now old enough to debate the abortion issue. Yet they can't hear about birth control or read about gay people..

[Winehole23]

GGA turns the tables.

Ole'!

[LnGrrrR]

After reading most of the posts against the school's reactions I can assume that you fools feel that 7th graders are now old enough to debate the abortion issue. Yet they can't hear about birth control or read about gay people..

I was watching Nighmare on Elm Street when I was 10 or so.

If my kid wants to talk about birth control, or gay people, or abortion, then I'll talk to him about it.

Heck, it's going to be fun enough raising him with my wife being Catholic and me atheist.

[Wild Cobra]

After reading most of the posts against the school's reactions I can assume that you fools feel that 7th graders are now old enough to debate the abortion issue. Yet they can't hear about birth control or read about gay people..

My biggest complaint is the way the school handled the situation. I don't like that they think they should squelch such a statement the girl made, but I really am uncertain without actually seeing the shirt.

She was already there through half the day. Lunchtime. Any damage, was already done. Why not just privately chastise her and contact the parents? Why humiliate her?

[Marcus Bryant]

I was watching Nighmare on Elm Street when I was 10 or so.

If my kid wants to talk about birth control, or gay people, or abortion, then I'll talk to him about it.

Heck, it's going to be fun enough raising him with my wife being Catholic and me atheist.

Such is the inherent problem with extending childhood to age 25 or whatever it is in this country.

[Winehole23]

There's no set age.

[George Gervin's Afro]

My biggest complaint is the way the school handled the situation. I don't like that they think they should squelch such a statement the girl made, but I really am uncertain without actually seeing the shirt.

She was already there through half the day. Lunchtime. Any damage, was already done. Why not just privately chastise her and contact the parents? Why humiliate her?

I have a feeling they did it because they needed to make sure that a precedent wasn't set. If a pro choice parent saw that t-shirt they could have made their child wear one the next day that could be derogatory towards conservatives...and here we go.... why did you let that kid where this and now my kid can't wearr this?...etc..

[Marcus Bryant]

There's no set age.

Not officially, but for many it does drift into the 20s.

[J.T.]

I was never asked to take off my "MAKE 7 / UP YOURS" shirt in school, although I was sent to alternative high school for two weeks for throwing water balloons off the 12th floor of a hotel on a trip and not hitting anyone.

[J.T.]

although I was sent to alternative high school for two weeks for throwing water balloons off the 12th floor of a hotel on a trip and not hitting anyone.

Which school officials signed off on because it was "assault with a deadly weapon"

you NEISD

[Jacob1983]

7th graders shouldn't care about politics especially things like abortion. They should just be kids and have fun.

[sam1617]

Ah, but what if the child has a message to send? Do you feel that the school should have the right to quash free speech if the parents sign that form?

Does the child have no say until they're 18?

Thats a different story. As much as I dislike protesters of any type, if you have something to say, and you are willing to accept the consequences, thats fine. But don't come crying to me when you get punished. I don't necessarily think that this is the most effective strategy, but , it could be.

[sam1617]

Sabar,

You bring up a lot of good points. However, I feel (and no, I'm not a parent yet, so my views on this might change) that it is the parent's responsibility to install their values on their children. If you don't want your kid shouting anti-war stuff when he gets home, you should discuss it with him/her and tell him/her why.

I think children are smarter at younger ages than we give them credit for, and I don't think we have to wait for a magical age to get them to start critically thinking. Heck, at six, my mother was divorced. At eight, I was having conversations with her about the person who she was looking to become my new father. Certainly that's as important as some of the 'big issues'?

If more parents discussed these things with their children, instead of just hoping no one ever mentioned it in school, I think we'd be better off as a society.

Absolutely. Parents, and no offense to anyone who is one, I'm speaking in generalities, think that just because a kid is a kid, it means they can't be responsible and knowledgeable. A huge chunk of why I am who I am is because my Dad took the time to argue with me about every subject known to man, probably because my Mom hates arguing, and my Dad needed someone too, but still. It taught me to think, and to question things, and in the end, I also ended up with much the same views as my Dad, even if we didn't agree on stuff when we were arguing about it.