No "Queer Eye" at Utah High School

[Pookie]

ACLU Defends Utah High School Students Censored for Wearing Gay-Themed Anti-Smoking T-Shirts

May 11, 2004

Assistant Principal Suspends Students, Threatens to Ban Gay-Straight Alliance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY – The American Civil Liberties Union today came to the defense of a group of Utah high school students who were punished for wearing “Queers Kick Ash” t-shirts to school. School officials also threatened to ban the school’s gay-straight alliance, and dozens of students are planning to wear the t-shirts today in protest.

In a letter sent today to the school, the ACLU of Utah demanded that officials remove any suspensions from the students' records, allow the students to wear the shirts without fear of punishment, and drop its threats against the school’s GSA.

“The Supreme Court has firmly established that students have a constitutional right to political speech and expression, and when ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ is one of the most popular programs on television and universities all over the country have queer theory and queer studies programs, there’s no doubt that it’s a commonly-used political term,” said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

Last Thursday, three Hillcrest High School students who wore the shirts were punished by Assistant Principal David Breen, who told them that the shirts were inappropriate and that he disapproved of the word “queer.” Two gay male students were given three options: taking the shirts off, turning them inside out, or suspension. One turned his shirt inside out and was allowed to stay at school; the other refused and was suspended. A heterosexual girl who wore the same shirt was given an additional fourth option of being sent home for the day without suspension, which she accepted.

On Friday, when more students wore the shirts to school and were similarly punished, Breen also threatened to bring the school’s gay-straight alliance, which wasn’t involved in distributing the t-shirts, to “a screeching halt.”

“Not only are the school’s reasons for censoring these students unlawful, but the Assistant Principal’s treating a straight student differently from the gay students and his threats to ban the school’s gay-straight alliance are completely unjustifiable,” said Margaret Plane, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Utah. “The school mishandled this from the start by punishing and threatening these students when it should be applauding them for taking a stand on an important public health issue.”

The shirts are part of an anti-smoking campaign aimed at LGBT youth. “Adolescence is a hard time for all young people, but it’s particularly stressful for LGBT students, who are dealing with the added stresses of harassment and coming out, and many of them turn to smoking. To reach young people on this issue, it must be done in a thought-provoking way that will make smoking seem uncool,” said Melinda Maureen, Director of Youth Programs at the GLBT Community Center of Utah, which gave the shirts to the students. She added, “These students are trying to do something incredibly positive by fighting the epidemic of youth smoking, and their school would rather silence them because it’s aimed at gay kids.”

A study from last year found that 34 percent of LGBT adults smoke, compared to 24 percent of heterosexual adults, and 90 percent of smokers began smoking as teenagers. Despite those figures, 89 percent of LGBT adults said that they had not seen an anti-smoking education or awareness campaign targeted toward them. The "Queers Kick Ash" effort is part of a larger campaign to address that gap and uses peer advocacy to discourage LGBT youth from smoking.

Today, about 25 students held a short, peaceful protest about Hillcrest’s handling of the t-shirts outside the school before classes began, and more students showed up at school wearing the shirts. It is not yet known whether those students are receiving similar punishment.

More information about LGBT youth and smoking can be found in a Witeck-Combs Communications/Harris Interactive survey released in January 2003, online at http://www.witeckcombs.com/show.news.asp?id=154&format=pdf

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15675&c=106

The "Queers Kick Ash" logo from the students' censored t-shirts.
http://www.aclu.org/images/client/QKAsmall.jpg

Another glaring example of why the biggest disruption to the education process can be the ignorance of a school's administrators.

 

[John Doe]

Hmm, and here I was thinking that using the word "queer" in reference to gays showed the ignorance of the person who used the word, not some school administrator. Then I imagine you won't have any problem with me printing up some "Niggers Don't Smoke" T-shirts and handing them out to those black students to wear?

Oh, adn also, this thread for all intents and purposes has been posted already.

 

[Pookie]

Hmm, and here I was thinking that using the word "queer" in reference to gays showed the ignorance of the person who used the word, not some school administrator. Then I imagine you won't have any problem with me printing up some "Niggers Don't Smoke" T-shirts and handing them out to those black students to wear?

Oh, adn also, this thread for all intents and purposes has been posted already.

"Queer" isn't a derogatory word. It's accepted and used by most, if not all, GLBT organizations. You've attached your own negative connotation too the word.

I would have a problem with you printing up what you propose ... as I think most educated people would find you to be a racist if you did. Your ignorance about the GLBT's community's use of the word "queer" doesn't excuse the use of other knowingly hateful speech.

 

[John Doe]

"Queer" isn't a derogatory word. It's accepted and used by most, if not all, GLBT organizations. You've attached your own negative connotation too the word.

I would have a problem with you printing up what you propose ... as I think most educated people would find you to be a racist if you did. Your ignorance about the GLBT's community's use of the word "queer" doesn't excuse the use of other knowingly hateful speech.

I am well aware of how the word "queer" is used in the GLBT community in a non-derogatory sense (and apparently it is only tolerated if it is used by someone who is gay), but I still find the word offensive, just as I find the the word "nigger" offensive even if a black person uses it.

As I said, I know full well how the word is used, which is exactly why I made the comparison.

 

[Pookie]

I am well aware of how the word "queer" is used in the GLBT community in a non-derogatory sense (and apparently it is only tolerated if it is used by someone who is gay), but I still find the word offensive, just as I find the the word "nigger" offensive even if a black person uses it.

As I said, I know full well how the word is used, which is exactly why I made the comparison.

If you understand that it's typically used in a non-derogatory way, then your comparison with a word that is typically used in a derogatory way is rather bizarre.

But ... as I said ... this situation at this high school is another glaring example of why the biggest disruption to the education process can be the ignorance of a school's administrators. The word "queer" is not derogatory. If the vice-principal is ignorant of the use of the word, then his not taking the time to educate himself did lead to an unneccesary disruption at this school. This is assuming that he was just ignorant of the use of the word, and that he had no other motivation for suppressing protected speech.

 

[John Doe]

If you understand that it's typically used in a non-derogatory way, then your comparison with a word that is typically used in a derogatory way is rather bizarre.

But ... as I said ... this situation at this high school is another glaring example of why the biggest disruption to the education process can be the ignorance of a school's administrators. The word "queer" is not derogatory. If the vice-principal is ignorant of the use of the word, then his not taking the time to educate himself did lead to an unneccesary disruption at this school. This is assuming that he was just ignorant of the use of the word, and that he had no other motivation for suppressing protected speech.

No, I do not understand that because it is not true. "Queer" is defined as a derogatory term and is commonly used as such.

You missed the point of the comparison. "Queer" used by anyone outside that group is commonly considered to be derogatory, just as the word "nigger" is considered to be so if anyone who is not black uses it. The words are designed to be offensive and I don't care if they're trying to 'own' them or whatever thier excuse is, but bigotry is bigotry and it shouldn't be tolerated from the minority, just as it is not tolerated from the majority.

You have yet to explain how the word "queer" is not derogatory to homosexuals. You've merely asserted as much.

As far as I can tell, there was no disruption of the education process or anything else until attorneys were involved. And they would never have been involved had the students accepted the punishment for their bigoted actions, or if they had refrained from them in the first place.

I do not believe hatred or bigotry are legitimate forms of speech or ways to express greivances. I am equally offended by it coming from anyone, I do not believe it is justified regardless of what similar treatment they have recieved.

If we condone this behavior from one person or one group of people, then how do we turn around later and convince others that retaliations is not the answer? If we take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, then we will all be blind and toothless.

 

[Pookie]

No, I do not understand that because it is not true. "Queer" is defined as a derogatory term and is commonly used as such.

You missed the point of the comparison. "Queer" used by anyone outside that group is commonly considered to be derogatory, just as the word "nigger" is considered to be so if anyone who is not black uses it. The words are designed to be offensive and I don't care if they're trying to 'own' them or whatever thier excuse is, but bigotry is bigotry and it shouldn't be tolerated from the minority, just as it is not tolerated from the majority.

You have yet to explain how the word "queer" is not derogatory to homosexuals. You've merely asserted as much.

As far as I can tell, there was no disruption of the education process or anything else until attorneys were involved. And they would never have been involved had the students accepted the punishment for their bigoted actions, or if they had refrained from them in the first place.

I do not believe hatred or bigotry are legitimate forms of speech or ways to express greivances. I am equally offended by it coming from anyone, I do not believe it is justified regardless of what similar treatment they have recieved.

If we condone this behavior from one person or one group of people, then how do we turn around later and convince others that retaliations is not the answer? If we take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, then we will all be blind and toothless.

You believe what you want then. Your ignorance of the GLBT population is rather obvious anyways.

You have yet to explain how the word "queer" is not derogatory to homosexuals. You've merely asserted as much.

Your lack of reading skills are rather obvious as well ...

“The Supreme Court has firmly established that students have a constitutional right to political speech and expression, and when ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ is one of the most popular programs on television and universities all over the country have queer theory and queer studies programs, there’s no doubt that it’s a commonly-used political term,” said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

Take up your argument with Tamara Lange. If you can convince her it's derogatory, then I'll admit it too.

 

[John Doe]

You believe what you want then. Your ignorance of the GLBT population is rather obvious anyways.

Yeah, I'll remember that the next time I call someone a queer.

 

[Lorrie Flash]

"Queer" isn't a derogatory word. It's accepted and used by most, if not all, GLBT organizations. You've attached your own negative connotation too the word.

I would agree with Stuponfucious.

I too, don't like the word 'queer', and would feel very uncomfortable using it. Queer has even been spread out to mean anyone who isn't heterosexual in some circles.

I understand the whole psychological reasoning of you can't change others, but you can change yourself and how you react to things around you, which is why (at least one reason anyway) queer is accepted by many gays. The word isn't as effective if you call yourself that, but still it bothers me. It also bothers me that blacks use the word, 'nigger' or even 'nigga'.

I guess using the word on yourself lessons the sting of it, but I look at it this way: If many people call you an asshole, would you start calling yourself an asshole in order to try and "claim it"? I wouldn't.

 

[Pookie]

I would agree with Stuponfucious.

I too, don't like the word 'queer', and would feel very uncomfortable using it. Queer has even been spread out to mean anyone who isn't heterosexual in some circles.

I understand the whole psychological reasoning of you can't change others, but you can change yourself and how you react to things around you, which is why (at least one reason anyway) queer is accepted by many gays. The word isn't as effective if you call yourself that, but still it bothers me. It also bothers me that blacks use the word, 'nigger' or even 'nigga'.

I guess using the word on yourself lessons the sting of it, but I look at it this way: If many people call you an asshole, would you start calling yourself an asshole in order to try and "claim it"? I wouldn't.

And I continue to disagree. You say you "don't like" the word "queer." That's cool. There are words I don't like too. That doesn't automatically make them bad or derogatory words. Based on the context I use it in, I can take any word and make it offensive or derogatory in its usage. I can make the word "straight" just as offensive to you as anyone can make "queer" to me. Does that make "straight" a derogatory word now? I don't think so.

The word "queer" was originally a synonym for "odd" or "unusual." Certainly, it has been taken out of its original context in the past to mean something derogatory toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals. The word has been "reclaimed" for its non-derogatory usage though over the past few decades.

However, the usage of the word "nigger" is derogatory in its very nature and origin. There is nothing to "reclaim." It has always been used in a disparaging way. "Nigger" is a term created by white supremacists and slave owners with the intent to harm the psychological well being and the social standing of black slaves. In the past 10 years or so, it has become popular in use by some blacks because of gangsta rap. Blacks who do use it for the most part claim they don't use it in an offensive way. That's cool, but by no means are they "reclaiming" a word.

It's interesting that you bring up the word "asshole." It's also a word, like "nigger," that's always been used in a derogatory way. It's origin is vulgar slang. You also have to take into account that Stup fits the usage of the word asshole. He's come to almost "claim" that word as his own, based on his trolling methods in the GLBT and General Board. So I would take care in automatically latching onto just anything he says. He has a habit of twisting the meaning of what people have said, just to be disagreeable ... very much like an asshole would do.

 

[Lorrie Flash]

Being odd and unusual is also taken in a negative way. You don't seem to even realize how it's being used.

If you carefully listen to Stuponfucious, he does make sense, from what I've read. It's funny how the best posts are often ignored here at Lit.

Believe what you want; that doesn't make it correct. But that's what great about the world we live in. You have the right to be in error.

BTW, if Stuponfucious is trolling as you claim, and you find him annoying, I find it amusing that you continue to spend lots of time talking to him. Oh well, that's your life.

 

[Pookie]

Being odd and unusual is also taken in a negative way. You don't seem to even realize how it's being used.

If you carefully listen to Stuponfucious, he does make sense, from what I've read. It's funny how the best posts are often ignored here at Lit.

Believe what you want; that doesn't make it correct. But that's what great about the world we live in. You have the right to be in error.

BTW, if Stuponfucious is trolling as you claim, and you find him annoying, I find it amusing that you continue to spend lots of time talking to him. Oh well, that's your life.

Being odd or unusual is not necessarily negative. It is if YOU choose to attach that connotation to it. Numerous odd and unusual things are far from being "negative" things, or seen in a negative way. It's all about usage. And your usage doesn't change the original nature of the word.

Also, I'm not stating my beliefs when I discussed the meaning of those words and their origins. You can look them up yourself, or continue to show your ignorance of their roots and original meanings by not believing or researching. Contrary to what you said, it's not a matter of me being right or wrong.

You need to research Stup a bit too (AKA Bitchslapper). He can be quite intelligent when he wants. But he's proven what I said in my previous posts numerous times. I don't "talk" to him, hon. He's replied to my posts numerous times now by twisting the meaning of what I've said, if not actually claiming I said something that I didn't. I've just been responding to correct the errors in what he's claimed I said. But if you enjoy chatting with Stup, knock yourself out, hon. The people you choose to associate with go a long way in defining who you are.

 

[Angel]

I find it sad that a person thinks that being odd and/or unusual is a bad thing.

 

[Lorrie Flash]

I find it sad that a person thinks that being odd and/or unusual is a bad thing.

Yes, I find it sad too; but that's how some people are unfortunately. And that's how it has been defined sometimes.

 

[Angel]

Yes, I find it sad too; but that's how some people are unfortunately. And that's how it has been defined sometimes.

Well, most people I know, myself included prefer to use whatever words we want to, and don't really care what other people use to define it. like "Queer".

 

[Lorrie Flash]

Well, most people I know, myself included prefer to use whatever words we want to, and don't really care what other people use to define it. like "Queer".

Same here. That's why I prefer not to use Queer, and don't care what others think.

But still you need to be aware of how others are in this world, when you come upon them. You can't stay in your own little community, sheltered from any other kind of people. You have to understand where others are coming from.

 

[yaspis]

Sheesh, people. Why do you always have to make a war out of a topic by some teeny disagreement? The whole point (which I find to be the school's unconstitutional actions) is drowned in your little arguments. I do not think that helps anyone in any way, but hey, that's just me. Maybe it's me who'll get nitpicked next.

But I'll get myself mixed in the tar as well. now. By my book the word "queer" means strange, out of normal, different - and as a slang word, gay. I do not find it similiar to words "nigger" and "nigga", which are known to be used 1) among the spoken group 2) outside the spoken group to intimidate and degrade them. I myself do not find this word offensive, degrading or reserved to the use of the spoken group, but then again, that's my opinion. There are plenty of people in the world who take offense in everything, and I think we see some examples here on Lit. I admit that the issue is sensitive, but somehow not as flammable as the "nigger/nigga" issue.

 

[Angel]

Feel free to show me the "war" in this thread.

 

[Lorrie Flash]

Feel free to show me the "war" in this thread.

That's what I was going to say.

I say what's on my mind and leave it at that. That's what message boards are for--giving your opinions.

During my years of being on message boards, IMO, I think a person can generally say all what they have to say during 1-on-1 conversation by writing 1-3 posts; after that people just start being repetitive, and seems like they just want to have the last word, erroneously thinking by having the last word, that makes them right.

 

[Lorrie Flash]

Maybe it's me who'll get nitpicked next.

Probably

 

[Pookie]

It appears that "queer" wasn't the word at issue with the Assistant Principal ... or was it ...

Gay students wage battle to be heard Administrators at a high school in Salt Lake City say they were only upholding their school’s dress code when they banned an antismoking T-shirt that features the slogan “Queers Kick Ash.” But the students have a different story.

By John Caldwell
An Advocate.com exclusive posted May 14, 2004

Administrators at Hillcrest High School in Salt Lake City said they were not being antigay when they asked a group of students to remove T-shirts that had the slogan “Queers Kick Ash” on them. The shirts, which were part of an antismoking campaign targeted at gay and lesbian youths, were potentially disruptive to the school environment because of the words “kick ash,” they said, and per the district’s dress code they were not allowed.

But the students, several of whom were suspended on May 6 and 7 for refusing to remove the shirts, had a different story. They claimed assistant principal David Breen told them he disapproved of the word “queer” and that he threatened to close down the school’s gay-straight alliance club if they didn’t comply.

And they say they’ve got a tape recording to prove it.

“There is a tape,” Chris Hampton, public education associate for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, told Advocate.com. “Actually there are two tapes.”

Hampton said quotes used in an ACLU press release, in which Breen was said to have opposed the word “queer” and threatened to bring the GSA to “a screeching halt,” came directly from one of the tapes, which were secretly recorded during two separate meetings between the students and Breen. The ACLU claims the students have a free speech right to wear the shirts on campus. They have formally asked the school to reverse the ban and remove any suspensions from the students’ records by May 20.

“Our concern is that this is an antismoking shirt making a political statement,” Margaret Plane, an attorney with the ACLU of Utah, told Advocate.com. “There was no disruption. Rather than sending the kids home, it could have been an educational experience for everyone. We understand how difficult it is for schools, but we understood that this went a little far.”

Breen (whose openly gay son, Matthew Breen, is the associate editor for Out magazine, a division of LPI Media, which owns Advocate.com) said he was merely upholding a school policy that applies to all students regarding potentially disruptive slogans on clothing. He took issue with the ACLU’s press release, which implied that he is antigay when in fact he was one of those primarily responsible for facilitating the launch of the GSA at the beginning of this school year. Breen declined to be quoted for this story, but he did tell Advocate.com that he utterly denies having said he was opposed to the word “queer” or that he said he would bring the GSA to “a screeching halt.” He has knowledge of the tapes, he said, but there is no way he could be heard saying those things on them.

The Utah high school conflict exposed the potentially volatile situation that can arise when two parties seem to be acting in the students’ best interests for different reasons. The school claims it is protecting gay and lesbian students from harm, while the ACLU claims it is protecting their free speech rights. Both say they are supportive of openly gay students.

“We’re trying to do everything we can to so stop bullying in our school,” Ted Lovato, executive director of the Jordan School District, told Advocate.com. “The term ‘kicking ash’ is not a pleasant term. To me, that’s a very negative connotation. The dress policy is centered on the disruption of the educational environment and the direction of the school. The policy uses language that says the students cannot bring undue attention to themselves. If we allow any group to come in and promote whatever they’re promoting, then do we allow a group of kids to wear T-shirts that promote hatred?”

Lovato said he didn’t know all the specifics in the case, but he does know Breen, he said, and Breen is not antigay. Or anti-”queer.” But he did admit that the word still stirs negative feelings among many older school officials, especially in a place like Utah. “Of course the word ‘queer’ is now acceptable nationwide,” he said. “But I guess we all need an education on that. I was always taught that ‘queer’ was a negative term. What’s going to prevent a dumb jock from coming up to these kids and saying, ‘I don’t like queers’?”

Hampton disagreed with that reasoning and said the larger issue of free speech was much more important. “If there’s disruption in school because there’s a bunch of homophobic kids, then that’s what the school should be dealing with,” she said. “Some schools are trying to protect students, but if a student wants to express a view and isn’t disrupting the class, they should be allowed to do that. If a kid had a shirt that said ‘riot in the hallways,’ that’s probably not protected. But this was something very positive. It’s about not smoking. We have heard about other schools in the area where kids are wearing these shirts and there’s nothing happening.”

The ACLU based its decision to represent the students on Tinker v. Des Moines School District, a 1969 Supreme Court case in which the justices upheld public school students’ First Amendment rights to wear black armbands at school to protest the Vietnam War. “You can’t suppress speech just because it might cause disruption,” Hampton said.

Eliza Byard, deputy executive director for the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, said he believes the school should have done a better job of considering the shirts in the right context. “The irony here is that the purpose of the T-shirts is completely laudable,” he said. “There’s a new effort to push all gay people to quit smoking. All schools confront the issue of political speech in school. [They need to have the] ability to discern the language in different contexts. It appears that they unfortunately may not have been clear about the intent [of the T-shirts].”

But Breen said he is standing behind his actions and that the school would not respond to the ACLU’s demands. He has no intention of closing the GSA, and he believes he was doing the right thing for all students, gay and straight.

Source: http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/915/915_kickash.asp

It would seem that this administrator did a little reseach after the fact and discovered that "queer" isn't derogatory, and his reasoning wouldn't hold up under court scrutiny. It appears he tried to change the reasoning for his actions in an attempt to avoid legal problems for his unwarranted actions.

And once again ... if the tape turns out to be as the students claim ... it's another glaring example of why the biggest disruption to the education process can be the ignorance of a school's administrators.

 

[rounder03]

The main point (which seems to have been missed):
School is supposed to be a place in which one learns academic skills. It was never intended to be a place of social experimentation or wagging one's sexual preferences in front of others. One can argue whether or not the school prom (in which "romance" is an approved and accepted theme) should include all legally-recognized activities (although I think pooper-scoopers should be required in the future when a guy brings his best ewe to the dance after beasitality is legalized), but I fail to see why this should excuse students from publicly flaunting their sexual preferences. I am sure that the ACLU would fall over themselves in their haste to ban a t-shirt proclaiming that "Heteros Kick Butts", for instance.
What the "queer" population has done, in this case, is to make an issue where none existed; that is, they purposely chose to take a legitimate issue (anti-smoking) and politicize it by conducting an "in-your-face" campaign which they knew would offend others. That doesn't speak very well for their character. It's ironic that those who are the first to cry out against derogatory remarks & slurs and who decry the lack of "tolerance" from others should choose such an offensive display. By choosing to segregate themselves from other anti-smokers by their choice of logo, they have denigrated their own cause (acceptance of homosexuality) and detracted from their professed cause (anti-smoking). To say that this result was unintended is to be naive, stupid, or deceitful.
What I have learned from all this is that "queers" are different from "straights" in this one major aspect: Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality in every area of life (jobs, religion, relationships, culture, entertainment, etc.), whereas herosexuals see sexuality as merely one (important) facet of their personality. I imagine these same tee-shirt wearers cannot buy a shaved ice without proudly proclaiming their "queerness" to the poor vendor, who couldn't care less what they do in their bedrooms. I thought that was what "queers" wanted--to be left alone in privacy and to be regarded as "whole" persons who are no different than heterosexuals. Now I find that they can't take a crap without proclaiming "I'm queer and I'm proud".
Sheesh! How messed up is that?

 

[Pookie]

The main point (which seems to have been missed):
School is supposed to be a place in which one learns academic skills. It was never intended to be a place of social experimentation or wagging one's sexual preferences in front of others. One can argue whether or not the school prom (in which "romance" is an approved and accepted theme) should include all legally-recognized activities (although I think pooper-scoopers should be required in the future when a guy brings his best ewe to the dance after beasitality is legalized), but I fail to see why this should excuse students from publicly flaunting their sexual preferences. I am sure that the ACLU would fall over themselves in their haste to ban a t-shirt proclaiming that "Heteros Kick Butts", for instance.
What the "queer" population has done, in this case, is to make an issue where none existed; that is, they purposely chose to take a legitimate issue (anti-smoking) and politicize it by conducting an "in-your-face" campaign which they knew would offend others. That doesn't speak very well for their character. It's ironic that those who are the first to cry out against derogatory remarks & slurs and who decry the lack of "tolerance" from others should choose such an offensive display. By choosing to segregate themselves from other anti-smokers by their choice of logo, they have denigrated their own cause (acceptance of homosexuality) and detracted from their professed cause (anti-smoking). To say that this result was unintended is to be naive, stupid, or deceitful.
What I have learned from all this is that "queers" are different from "straights" in this one major aspect: Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality in every area of life (jobs, religion, relationships, culture, entertainment, etc.), whereas herosexuals see sexuality as merely one (important) facet of their personality. I imagine these same tee-shirt wearers cannot buy a shaved ice without proudly proclaiming their "queerness" to the poor vendor, who couldn't care less what they do in their bedrooms. I thought that was what "queers" wanted--to be left alone in privacy and to be regarded as "whole" persons who are no different than heterosexuals. Now I find that they can't take a crap without proclaiming "I'm queer and I'm proud".
Sheesh! How messed up is that?

The main point is freedom of expression. The US Supreme Court has held that students don't lose that right when they walk through the school yard gates. And you're quite naive if you think school is only about "academic skills" as well. But your ignorance of this entire case is evident, even without your obviously homophobic statements. You can wrap your homophobia with whatever you want ... but the smell is just as bad.

Also, the ACLU has "fall(en) over themselves in their haste" to support freedom of expression for quite a few groups, from very conservative/religious to very liberal. Try doing a little research before you make such poorly informed claims.



Edited for spelling.

 

[rounder03]

The main point is freedom of expression. The US Supreme Court has held that students don't lose that right when they walk through the school yard gates. And you're quite naive if you think school is only about "academic skills" as well. But your ignorance of this entire case is evident, even without your obviously homophobic statements. You can wrap your homophobia with whatever you want ... but the smell is just as bad.

Also, the ACLU has "fall(en) over themselves in their haste" to support freedom of expression for quite a few groups, from very conservative/religious to very liberal. Try doing a little research before you make such poorly informed claims.



Edited for spelling.

YOUR main point may be freedom of expression. What you obviously fail to grasp is that the right to "freedom of expression" is limited in public schools. Schools routinely employ dress codes that prohibit advertising of (legal) substances banned on campuses, such as cigarettes and alcohol; offensive symbols such as the Confederate flag; facial piercings other than earrings; visible tattoos; thongs; halter tops; language deemed to be vulgar, sexually suggestive, or offensive by community standards...the list goes on and on. Those who demand their right to offend others with their messages are responsible for schools making the shift to adopt school uniforms.

 

[Pookie]

YOUR main point may be freedom of expression. What you obviously fail to grasp is that the right to "freedom of expression" is limited in public schools. Schools routinely employ dress codes that prohibit advertising of (legal) substances banned on campuses, such as cigarettes and alcohol; offensive symbols such as the Confederate flag; facial piercings other than earrings; visible tattoos; thongs; halter tops; language deemed to be vulgar, sexually suggestive, or offensive by community standards...the list goes on and on. Those who demand their right to offend others with their messages are responsible for schools making the shift to adopt school uniforms.

And what you obviously fail to grasp is that schools can not suppress protected speech, no matter how much YOU may dislike it. The t-shirt wasn't a violation of the school's dress code. The initial reason the assistant principal gave for his actions did not involve the school's dress code at all, but rather his personal dislike for the word "queer." Obviously after he realized the word "queer" couldn't be considered offensive, he (and the school's administrators) later revised that reason to say that the slogan "kick ash" was potentially disruptive to the school's environment. The school district's executive director even went as far as saying, "Of course the word ‘queer’ is now acceptable nationwide," he said. "But I guess we all need an education on that."

You might want to read up on the US Supreme Court cases, Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comty. Sch. Dist., Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., and Barber v. Dearborn Schools. In Tinker, the Supreme Court carefully pointed out that an “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” In Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., “Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance.” What is required, according to Saxe, is a “well-founded expectation of disruption – especially one based on past incidents arising out of similar speech . . . .” If you had taken the time to actually read my posts, you would have seen that other students in schools in that school's area are wearing those specific t-shirts, and there’s been no incidents of disruption at all.

Slogans such as "kick the habit" have been around for decades. In light of that, how "kick ash" could somehow be disruptive is ludicrous when referring to fighting cigarette use. But even so, your initial rant about the word "queer" and homosexuals' "wagging one's sexual preferences in front of others" clearly displays your lack of knowledge and understanding of this entire case. This last post continues your trend of ranting without even reading and understanding what the situation was about.

Again, you might find it a bit helpful when discussing a topic to do a little research (including reading what is actually posted) so that you don't appear to be so ignorant with your remarks.