Comments on: Boy punished for T-shirt with gun image

By: bosco

bosco — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:25:13 +0000

1. It’s pretty black and white. You either agree that children are possessions until they reach a magic age or pass some magic test, or you don’t. Unfortunately the same applies to animals, which I tend to like more than people. Parents have the ability to do anything to their children and I (or anyone else) can’t physically stop them. We can however exert control far greater than physical coercion over the people we meet and we should use that to influence parents.
2. Currently schools are responsible for the safety and education (as vague as those terms are) of children. When children are in schools, or on a bus, the administrators/teachers/drivers actions trump any parents actions. The idea of ensuring children’s safety has been extended to the point of monitoring their nutrition. If parents have problems with this, they can argue it with the school board after the fact.

By: bile

bile — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:38:14 +0000

1 - None. But that doesn’t mean you can’t say "If you do X I won’t let you back on my property." If the child purchased the shirt they still store it likely in the parents home. They also live there. They can stipulate the shirt can not be worn if the child wants to stay in the home. The parent has rights to their property… not the child.
2 - The family in the story is trying to make this a 1st Amendment issue. It’s not unless the federal Congress had created the law banning the kid from wearing the shirt. I doubt Congress has. As I said… given the mix of authority in our modern schools it’s difficult to say who holds responsibility for some things. Since it was the local authorities who were acting on a local level this is not a 1st Amendment issue unless PA’s constitution has a 1st Amendment regarding freedom of speech and I’m referring to the wrong 1st Amendment.

By: beetlbumjl

beetlbumjl — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:22:47 +0000

bosco, 1 - You know it’s not as black and white as that. In the education thread, you asked a nuanced question that would make John Kerry blush. 2 - What are the schools’ legal responsibilities when a child is under their supervision? (As a teacher you could answer this better than I.) Is this responsibility enough to ever warrant (1). bile, 1 - What rights do parents have outside their property in regards to children? (Or am I taking the term ‘property’ too literally?) 2 - I’m not following your last sentence.

By: bosco

bosco — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:02:34 +0000

Perhaps this can help clarify the issue.

By: bile

bile — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:51:12 +0000

1 - Parents can control what goes on in and on their property. If they don’t want the child to wear something than they may set those rules. If the child does not want to obey they can leave the property.
2 - This wouldn’t be an issue with privately owned schools. The school could set any rules they wish. This problem only arises because of government schools. The fact almost all government schools are controlled by local, state and federal government make the issue difficult since they all have different statutes. In this particular case the whole 1st Amendment thing is wrong unless the rule was dictated by Congress which I doubt it was.

By: bosco

bosco — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:18:23 +0000

1 - Parents have the right to do anything to their children.
2 - Schools will never be surrogate parents no matter what the parents want. At best you can have a contract with the parents outlining your responsibilities.

By: beetlbumjl

beetlbumjl — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:52:31 +0000

1 - Do parents have the right to censor what their children wear?
2 - If schools are responsible for children during school hours, as they are surrogate parents of sorts, does (1) apply to them as well?

By: bosco

bosco — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:12:48 +0000

Dress code violations are an interesting subject. Some times, administrators are unaware as to what a symbol represents and consequently it takes them a while to catch up. I’ve seen T-shirts with malevolent-looking snow men banned because they reference rap lyrics that refer to drugs, "I’ve got that snow, man". I’ve seen images of the shocker banned. I’ve personally recommended banning brown shirts because they remind me of Nazi germany.