Boy given detention for wearing shirt with image of gun to school
Categories: Teens & tweens, In the news, Education
There are many times that I am grateful that my son is required to wear a uniform to school. They can wear jeans but there are specific shirts that they must wear, in specific colors. This seems to avoid any problems with dress code rules such as the one that is happening in Pennsylvania. A 14-year-old boy from Lancaster, Pennsylvania has been given detention for wearing a t-shirt to school with an image of a military firearm. The front pocket of the shirt says "Volunteer Homeland Security with "Special Issue Resident Lifetime License" on the back of the shirt.
He was told to turn the shirt inside out the rest of the day and refused because he claimed the shirt was worn to honor his uncle, who was fighting in Iraq. After refusing to turn the shirt inside out, he received two days of detention.
His family is now filing a freedom of speech lawsuit against the school district, claiming it also stifles patriotism. The lawyer for the school said the image on the shirt violates the school district's policy.
A judge will hear the case on March 31. Does this family really have a freedom of speech case? Should the boy have just turned the shirt inside out and obeyed the rules?
Read
Recent Posts
- Feist's Sesame Street appearance (7/19/2008)
- Minnie Driver set to be a chubby mommy (7/19/2008)
- Dad called pervert for taking pictures of his own kids in public (7/19/2008)
- Gas containers must now be child resistant (7/19/2008)
- Fertility goes Brave New World (7/19/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Maureen 3-11-2008 @ 1:34PM
I don't know what the law would say, but my own instinct would be that the school should be allowed to set a policy of dress code. If it is written in the dress code that clothing with images of guns are not allowed, then I would be inclined to agree with the school. The child can wear the shirt after school or on weekends.
Kids are in school to learn, not be distracted by what clothes they are wearing.
I would love it if all schools required uniforms for. Some of the things I see really young girls wearing are disturbing.
Oh crap, does this mean I'm getting old?? :)
Reply
Mel 3-11-2008 @ 1:50PM
But see, here's the thing. Military recruiters are a contant presence at many high schools. ROTC and JROTC programs are brimming with participants. Surely, everyone understands that ROTC members know that there are *guns* (gasp!) involved in military service, which is the natural and anticipated extension of the ROTC program. Military is simply a part of the high school atmosphere; guns make the military possible. See the deductive reasoning there? As long as we're at war (like it or not), as long as military recruiters come on campus, as long as ROTC programs exist...there can be neither a logical nor a legal justification for abridging a student's right to wear a shirt depicting a gun.
Gun-haters and clothes-Nazis like to use the slippery close argument, so I'll apply it here to appease that crowd: Rubber bands are OFTEN used in violent ways in schools. Say someone inexplicably wanted to wear a shirt depicting a rubber band - is that banned? Should it be?
This whole thing is just one more example of school employees hopping up on their high horses. Of course, they have the luxury to act cavalierly and stubbornly - WE pay for their legal defense. School officials/educators are truly bottom-barrel dregs at this point.
Reply
isisaquaria 3-11-2008 @ 2:23PM
I agree as a military wife, we have military shirts out the wazoo--my husband deserves our support. We got a new principal this year and in the new handbook it said no camo due to gang affliation. As you might imagine, there was a problem. We promptly called a parent meeting with the man(husband in full ACU-me in military wife, daughters both in "daddy wears combat boots" type shirts) needless to say it was a short meeting and the kids can where camo.
I have a hard time with anti-military folks, and while there is a line that can be crossed--if the uncle is serving and that shirt is representative of it-the school should stuff it.
My fave shirt which we all have
"If you can't stand behind our military.. stand in front of it."
Is it rude-YES but so is telling my husband he should die because he is a soldier--and yes it has happened.
queenoqueens 3-11-2008 @ 1:54PM
Should have turned it inside out and obeyed the rules. What's the point of the school having a policy if they can't enforce it? Do the parents disagree with the policy?
Nobody wants to live in a fascist environment where you can't speak your mind, but the point of school is education, not political debate. The spirit of the policy is that anything that alludes to violence is not conducive to learning. And while this shirt may have not gotten any attention if they just ignored it, they have to draw the line somewhere.
I'm guessing the school administrators just want to promote a peacful environment. If I worked at a public school in the day and age of Columbine, I know I would . Plus, this shirt smacks of vigilanteism more than it does patriotism anyway. I'd like to see the parents wear this T-shirt to their workplace, and then sue if the boss tells them to take it off.
The parents may think they're doing the right thing by fighting to protect "freedom of speech", but they're doing a disservice. Now the district has to take limited time and money and waste it on this. It's a shame.
Reply
Mel 3-11-2008 @ 2:03PM
"I'd like to see the parents wear this T-shirt to their workplace, and then sue if the boss tells them to take it off."
You are right to imply that the parents could not sue. It's often overlooked that freedom of speech applies only between the government and the citizens. Private entities are certainly entitled to dictate dress code and the like. The school in this case is public, making it an arm of the government. That is where the constitutional free speech argument enters.
queenoqueens 3-11-2008 @ 2:44PM
Mel, what if the parent works for the post office? That is an arm of the government the same way the school is. Should they be able to wear the shirt then?
I guess the argument is between practicality and principle. Some would argue principle at any cost, but I think you have to be practical at some point, without going overboard. That balance is the tough part, because everyone has a different opinion on what is balanced.
I dislike it when one ridiculous thing happens, and a broad policy is instituted that creates bureaucracy, when in fact, they could have dealt with the one incident and been done with it. But it's hard to find balance when the end result of violence in school can lead to death, or simply an environment of fear that prevents learning. That's when I find the slippery slope starting to make sense, as much as I hate it.
Isis---with regards to camo, that is even tougher since camo in itself does not explicity represent violence. Whereas a gun....well, a gun's sole purpose is to scare, injure or kill.
I remember I would go to a roller rink in NYC when I was young. And you had to turn your shirts inside out depending on what it said, or even certain colors were prohibited due to their being "gang colors". OK, it would be hard to restrict the use of the color "red", but hell, if it's going to keep me from getting shot, I'll wear beige with a smile!
Reply
isisaquaria 3-11-2008 @ 2:56PM
A gun can be to protect...yes it does so by scaring, injuring or killing if needed, but it is often for the protection of someone in danger. I know it is not always the case, but just wanted to point it out.
It is all something to consider.
Mel 3-11-2008 @ 3:03PM
Interesting conversation. A lot of this clearly boils down to perspective. You say that guns' "sole purpose is to scare, injure, or kill. Some people, including those in service, might see that guns' sole purpose is to protect and defend. Those people would say that any other use would be a deviation from the intended purpose, just like the designation of camo as a gang symbol is a deviation from the intended purpose of camo. Obviously this is an intellectual point rather than a pragmatic one; much more harm is done via guns than camo.
Kelsey 3-11-2008 @ 2:45PM
Most schools have written into their dress code policy that a student can not wear a T-shirt depicting a weapons, violence, alcohol, drugs, sex, nudity, etc. None of this is conductive to the learning enviroment. It is not like the parents or the student could have been suprised by what happened.
I also am having major issues figuring out how having a T-shirt saying, "Volunteer Homeland Security"or "Special Issue Resident Lifetime License" supports an uncle fighting in Iraq. It sounds more like vigilante than pro-military. A T-shirt with his uncle's name and a nice phrase voicing support would have made more sense and not have violated the school policy.
Reply
isisaquaria 3-11-2008 @ 2:59PM
Since there is no current draft--the military is VOLUNTEER thus the Volunteer Homeland Security--the military is the first line of defense in HS--the special issue--I am still trying to find out how it may tie in for sure-but most military folks I know have said they have seen this before, just not sure why
jane 3-11-2008 @ 3:55PM
I feel mostly this is a perspective issue. We had a rule that was pretty much no violence, drugs, nudity, etc in our school. My older brother who was a “school letter jacket wearer” wore a shirt to school that said “I don’t drive no ugly truck” with a picture of a Chevy on it with a VERY well endowed blond in a bikini standing next to the truck. Nothing happened. My younger brother who was the class clown wore it a few months later and was told to turn in inside out. He didn’t want to involve my older brother so he did as he was told. We were talking to my dad about it at supper and my dad just said you have to obey the rules. Sometimes people do things and don’t get caught but if you do, you have to pay the piper.
I think a lot of kids now just think they can do what they want and their parents let them have that notion. I’m not getting into what the shirt said or what it meant to the boy involved. The point is that if you wear something you know your not supposed to, you have to deal with the consequences. If you want to change a rule, then you go to the school board and make changes the right way. I think parents who stand behind their kids when they do something they’re not supposed to do are doing their children a disservice. The world revolves around rules and laws and for the majority of us, we follow them but then we have all these others who just think “I’ll sue” or “my kids can do what they want.” I feel there is a way to do things and this isn’t the right way.
Reply
SKL 3-11-2008 @ 4:07PM
If there is a rule against it already, he needed to cover it up. If not, they need to address it by instituting a consistent dress code for everyone, or let it go.
Reply
Jenni 3-11-2008 @ 4:30PM
Let me premis this by saying that I do think that all schools (public, private, whatever) should have a dress code. School is supposed to prepare you for the real world (which should read as the "work/professional" world). I would never wear a shirt like that to work, so I would never allow my child to wear a shirt like that to school.
Now, my thoughts on the freedom of speech: This may shock some one, but children do now have the right to freedom of speech. Why? They are MINORS, they have no rights. I really think that we have gone too far when children are being allowed to sue the schools because of something they wore or said. When they turn 18 and of legal age, they can have their rights in full force. We as adults need to teach our children to use these rights and freedoms appropriatly; and suing a school in this case is not what we should be teaching them.
Reply
Mel 3-11-2008 @ 4:46PM
Jenni, I really don't know what you mean when you say that students have no rights because they are "minors." While certain courts and legislatures have, pehaps unconstitutionally, abridged the rights of minors, being of minor age does not in itself exclude one from the benefit of rights. In fact, those same courts and legislatures have many times permitted relief to a minor when the minor's rights were abridged. Further, the laws and precedents which limit minor capacity generally do so in the name of protecting a not-yet-fully-developed mind from actions which he may later regret. This reasoning is clear from reams of legislative history and judicial dicta. As such, no "right" has, to my knowledge, been limited. While minors cannot enter into a contract, smoke, drink, or marry, none of these activities have been deemed "rights." These are considered "privileges." Free speech, on the other hand, is undoubtedly a right, and no court or legislature has said that the First Amendment does not apply to minors. Bottom line: It is patently false to say "They are minors, they have no rights."
eugene 3-11-2008 @ 4:40PM
I really wish school officials would spend as much time teaching as they did worrying about what kids are wearing to school, how long they're hugging, if they have nail clippers or if they're getting enough religious diversity.
In my professional life, I've had to train numerous high school graduates who could barely read and write and were completely unprepared for life without a babysitter.
For me, teaching my kid how to read what's written on the shirt is much more important than the words on it.
Reply
ame s 3-11-2008 @ 6:03PM
ISIS, I think anyone who would say such a thing to a soldier deserves a pistol-whippin', but that's just my opinion.
It has been over 20 years since I was in high school (!) but we had a dress code forbidding any obscene or violent imaging on t-shirts. As a gun owner, I don't find the image of a gun to be offensive or violent in of itself, but some people manage to find offense in things more easily than I do.
Our school system's (west TN) dress code for students in grades 5 and above prohibits tshirts of any kind and is considering banning jeans beginning in the fall of 2009.
Our school system has such problems with drugs and violence (we've become a "little Memphis") that I have enrolled my
I have yet to end up getting kicked off the school parking lot due to my
"Support the right to arm bears" bumper sticker, depicting a very large bear with a very large rifle.
Reply
Joyce 3-11-2008 @ 9:53PM
I believe all schools should have dress codes. I have gone by schools when they were getting out and the boys cant hold on to their books and pants at the same time, or they are walking around hanging onto their privates (so their pants dont fall down) or to be sure that they (privates) are still there. Dress codes would keep their mind on their studies, what they are there for, and not on someone elses shirt or cute belly button. In case you havn't figured it out i am a grandmother, and it makes me ill to see all the boys running around showing off their boxers. Why not just remove the jeans if you think your boxers are so nice.
Reply
Jim 3-12-2008 @ 11:49AM
Nice "vague Orwellian policy" reference by the parents, but clearly these people have never read the novel they're referring to (1984). In that book, children are encouraged to act as violent, ruthless vigilante spies and soldiers...which is exactly what that t-shirt seems to promote on a 14-year-old. The kid should be able to express his support for the troops without wearing a shirt that implicitly promotes gun violence. I mean, it's two detentions. Get over it.
Reply