Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So based upon what the superintendent said, it would have been ok for the student to wear the shirt "after" Obama was sworn in as president. The student wanted to wear the shirt the day of swearing in. That's a questionable judgement call. I think the principal was doing a CYA decision to avoid any possible confrontation. When I was in school we always had a photo of our current and some past US presidents posted somewhere in the classroom.
Obama was elected president by the general population on November 4, by the electoral college in early January, and confirmed by Congress a few days later. The inauguration, while an important legal step, just signalled the time the presidency began. The campaign was over in November.
After reading the rest of the article provided by Sailor Dave, I agree that he should have been able to wear the shirt.
There have been many judgement calls by schools that some argreed with and some didn't. Did a quick net search and found some students were sent home for wearing anti-war shirts, anti-Bush shirts, pro-Kerry shirts, a US Marines shirt, and one student was sent home for dressing like Jesus for Halloween.
I don't agree with denying the kid wearing the shirt but I don't think it's worth a lawsuit. Using the supers' statement I'd send the kid to school the next chance I got. If denied or told he has to go home then they may have a case, but go through the school and school board before calling lawyers.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave
There have been many judgement calls by schools that some argreed with and some didn't. Did a quick net search and found some students were sent home for wearing anti-war shirts, anti-Bush shirts, pro-Kerry shirts, a US Marines shirt, and one student was sent home for dressing like Jesus for Halloween.
Why would a student get sent home for dressing like Jesus? I saw Jesus on Halloween when he was blowing leaves out of the yards and he was dressed like he dresses everyday. He wasn't even wearing that big hat the Mexicans snooze under on hot days! As for the other Jesus- the Lord and Saviour Jesus- it would be kind of hard to dress like him since we don't really have many Kodaks of him around to see what he wore. Last time I went to a clothing store, they did not have a "dress like Jesus" department or even a sign that said WWJW (What Would Jesus Wear?).
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
Aren't there photos of the president up in the school?
Our school had photos of the Presidents - of course Ford was the last one when I finished- but they took them down because students kept defacing Nixon.
[URL="http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=9718857"]WIS News 10 - Columbia, South Carolina | Principal forbids 5th grader to wear Obama shirt to school[/URL]
In my government classroom at school their is an Obama shirt that is hanging on the bullitan board that one of my friends got for my teacher from her work place. That is the only place for any canidates shirt to be. We are allowed to have stickers supporting our canidate but no clothing.
I agree all the way with the principle on this one because even if you support the canidate or you don't, thier is a regular dress code and thier is only exceptions when premitted by the principle or a teacher. In this case the principle said NO and she is the head of the school.
I can see how it might be a destraction. The only question I have is...I know that some 5th graders may be big into politics or something, but I'm sure he wore it b/c his parents supported Obama, he probably knows very little about who and what Obama is and supports.
There have been many judgement calls by schools that some argreed with and some didn't. Did a quick net search and found some students were sent home for wearing anti-war shirts, anti-Bush shirts, pro-Kerry shirts, a US Marines shirt, and one student was sent home for dressing like Jesus for Halloween.
When my kids went to school in Los Angeles, we were sent a long list of clothes that were forbidden. Clothing with political messages, sexual messages, religious messages, and anything red or blue (gang colors). The red/blue issue was subjective and hard to follow, because obviously jeans are blue (and were not forbidden), and it's hard to have a wardrobe that doesn't have any red or blue in it. I guess every principal had their own idea of what went too far.
My kids' principal was one of the stricter ones. Personally, I liked it. Some schools had regular problems with fights--but not our school. Our school had one of the best grade averages in the area, too. I never felt a need to put my kids in private school--you can't say that with every school in the LAUSD.
Dress code is one of those issues that looks different when you are a kid and when you are a parent. When I was a young girl I remember being furious because I wasn't allowed to wear a halter top. Now I see it a little differently. Which is not to say I don't appreciate both sides of the issue--but I've become a fan of dress codes because students do better with them.
Having a classroom photo of a president is a different issue, IMO, because it isn't attracting attention to an individual student.
In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the wearing of black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War was Constitutionally protected speech. Writing for the majority in Tinker v Des Moines Justice Brennen wrote:
"Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom.
If a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or the expression by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise, it would be obvious that the regulation would violate the constitutional rights of students, at least if it could not be justified by a showing that the students' activities would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Cf. Hammond"
I can't think of a more fundamental aspect of free speech, than the promotion of a political candidate much less the President Elect of the United States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
