T-Shirt Drama at school

[teachercd]

Shoot, the link wasn't working, it was on Yahoo today. The girl work a "some people are gay, get over it" shirt.

Well, The Tinker case pretty much covers this from back in the 60's but the part that is foolish...she went home for the day because she was upset that they wanted her to put on a different shirt. So the lesson is...when you are upset you go home.

 

[GSG]

Shoot, the link wasn't working, it was on Yahoo today. The girl work a "some people are gay, get over it" shirt.

Well, The Tinker case pretty much covers this from back in the 60's but the part that is foolish...she went home for the day because she was upset that they wanted her to put on a different shirt. So the lesson is...when you are upset you go home.

This one? http://globalnews.ca/news/2721958/some-people-are-gay-get-used-to-it-teen-told-pro-lgbtq-shirt-violates-school-dress-code/

 

[teachercd]

Yep! Thnaks

 

[NUance]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code “prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.”

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes “disturbing” clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

 

[huKSer]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code “prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.”

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes “disturbing” clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

“According to CCISD’s dress code in the student handbook and code of conduct, clothing that is disruptive to the learning environment based on reactions by other students is prohibited.”

So if any fundamentalist Christian student say they are offended the shirt is prohibited. Does anyone know if there are any of these in Texas?

 

[JJ Husker]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code “prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.”

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes “disturbing” clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes disturbing clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.
Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs.

 

[JJ Husker]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes disturbing clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs.

Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.
I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did.

You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive.

Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me?

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes disturbing clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs.

Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.
I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did.

You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive.

Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me?

Okay, okay. I get your point. You were against the school. I was wrong in how I interpreted your post there. With so much angst and sarcasm, it can be difficult to read your posts. However, when you say that calling someone gay as an insult is not offensive, I would say you are wrong. I get your response will be, "I didn't say calling someone gay is not insulting"; however, that is what was said in the derp thread and that was your response.

 

[JJ Husker]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes disturbing clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs.

Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did.

You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive.

Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me?

Okay, okay. I get your point. You were against the school. I was wrong in how I interpreted your post there. With so much angst and sarcasm, it can be difficult to read your posts. However, you think that calling someone gay as an insult is not offensive. There, I would say you are wrong.

Actually I do believe calling someone gay as an insult can be considered offensive. I just don't think that is what happened in the derp thread.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes disturbing clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs.

Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did.

You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive.

Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me?

Okay, okay. I get your point. You were against the school. I was wrong in how I interpreted your post there. With so much angst and sarcasm, it can be difficult you read your posts. However, you think that calling someone gay as an insult is not offensive. There, I would say you are wrong.

Actually I do believe calling someone gay as an insult can be considered offensive. I just don't think that is what happened in the derp thread.

That's funny. While you were writing this post, I was editing my post to say that I realize this is your opinion. It seems we will just not see eye-to-eye with this, which is fine.

 

[JJ Husker]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes disturbing clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs.

Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did.

You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive.

Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me?

Okay, okay. I get your point. You were against the school. I was wrong in how I interpreted your post there. With so much angst and sarcasm, it can be difficult to read your posts. However, you think that calling someone gay as an insult is not offensive. There, I would say you are wrong.

Actually I do believe calling someone gay as an insult can be considered offensive. I just don't think that is what happened in the derp thread.

That's funny. While you were writing this post, I was editing my post to say that I realize this is your opinion. It seems we will just not see eye-to-eye with this, which is fine.

No problem, I'm over it. Beers at 3:00? I'm buying.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

According to the CCISD student handbook, the dress code prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing (including bags/backpacks) that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, or obscene.

In addition, the handbook says school administrators have the final say over what constitutes disturbing clothing.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy.

:

Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.

Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs.

Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did.

You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive.

Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me?

Okay, okay. I get your point. You were against the school. I was wrong in how I interpreted your post there. With so much angst and sarcasm, it can be difficult to read your posts. However, you think that calling someone gay as an insult is not offensive. There, I would say you are wrong.

Actually I do believe calling someone gay as an insult can be considered offensive. I just don't think that is what happened in the derp thread.

That's funny. While you were writing this post, I was editing my post to say that I realize this is your opinion. It seems we will just not see eye-to-eye with this, which is fine.

No problem, I'm over it. Beers at 3:00? I'm buying.

As hot as it is outside today, I'm down for a few cold ones.