6 ms·

> No, no, and no. It would lose you the respect of your liberal and/or LGBTQ peers, but the school can't stop you unless it stops all controversial or political

> No, no, and no. It would lose you the respect of your liberal and/or LGBTQ peers, but the school can't stop you unless it stops all controversial or political speech on clothing (which is a Time, Place, and Manner restriction). What about the argument that it creates a hostile learning environment for GLBT folks and therefore denies them their right to an equal opportunity for education? What about the argument that such a T-shirt amounts to reinforcing discrimination regarding gender roles? In other words, to what extent does this put schools in a circumstance where if they tolerate the t-shirt they get sueed by one group under Title VII and if they don't tolerate it they get sued by another group under Section 1983? The problem as I see it is that both sides end up with colorable arguments. Moreover suppose the school decides to teach Aristotelian social theory and starts out at the married household level. Is this discrimination? Is this a one-way street? Aristotelian social theory basically states that men and women come together in procreative unions which form households and these form the basic mechanisms of cultural transmission and development. Households come together to create communities. Therefore instead of the Lockean two-level contract (individuals and states) you have three (people and households, households and state). Aristotelian theory thus supports localism and local culture in ways that the theories of folks like Locke, Hobbes, and Hume do not.

superuser2 13y ago
>In other words, to what extent does this put schools in a circumstance where if they tolerate the t-shirt they get sueed by one group under Title VII and if they don't tolerate it they get sued by another group under Section 1983? Good question. I don't think that would pass for discrimination in the courts, but avoiding the lawsuit is an excellent reason for a school to disallow political speech in its dress code and enforce that uniformly (no pun intended). >Moreover suppose the school decides to teach Aristotelian social theory and starts out at the married household level. Is this discrimination? Is this a one-way street? My English summer reading one year was the first five books of the Tanakh. Lots of slavery, genocide, passing around women like property, etc. We also read the first chapter of Mein Kampf in German, and excerpts from the Communist Manifesto in History. Teaching ideas is not the same as preaching them. The courts are never going to rule against presenting what Aristotle thought in philosophy class. That's absurd. If the school decided to preach about the proper unit of family, people would be understandably pissed (including Christians who would rather that authority came from God than Aristotle), but teaching what Aristotle wrote about the proper unit of family as "this is what Aristotle wrote" is pretty cut and dried.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > Good question. I don't think that would pass for discrimination in the courts, but avoiding the lawsuit is an excellent reason for a school to disallow political speech in its dress code and enforce that uniformly (no pun intended). How far does this go? Imagine a T-shirt which is intentionally provocative and offensive. Something like: Free Speech "Kill the niggers... We intend to do our part..." -- Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 Now the offensive quote is from footnote 1 of the Supreme Court's majority opinion describing the speech at issue. It is some of the most vile speech one could imagine but it is protected due to extending precedents aimed at reining in McCarthy-era abuses. Or suppose it included a picture of a burning cross instead? (Cross burning has also been held in certain contexts to be free speech on the same basis.) Now if you are a black student you might be pardoned for assuming this is glorifying KKK activities and their rein of terror. It very well might create an unwelcoming educational atmosphere for minority kids and thus run afoul with the civil rights act. On the other hand what does this say about the rule of law? > The courts are never going to rule against presenting what Aristotle thought in philosophy class. I would have thought his Politics would be more appropriate for social studies. "This is the way societies work." Interestingly it is hard to understand modern sociology or anthropology without having a general understanding of Aristotle's approach here.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    Simple. "Kill the niggers" advocates indiscriminate violence, which you are never under any circumstances allowed to do in a school. A more appropriate analogy would be "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a violation of states' rights and should be repealed." That was said in one of my classes. No one got suspended.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Right but the T-shirt is saying, in effect, "The Supreme Court said this was free speech." It is arguably only expounding how far the boundaries of free speech go. This is an interesting question because it gets to the heart of the question of how far free speech goes in school. I have trouble imagining a court holding that summarizing and quoting from a Supreme Court opinion is not free speech and protected (and the hypothetical T-shirt clearly does this), but I am also pretty sure the Southern Poverty Law Center would sue in a second if the school didn't take action. This is an example of a hypothetical where significant legal arguments could mean both that the school must act and also that the school must not act. It's even possible a school could be sued and lose on both sides. BTW, the states rights argument regarding the Civil Rights Act is more complex and it has to do with unconstitutional efforts to ensure ratification (refusing to seat Senators from non-ratifying states). My view however is that these could have been raised early on and weren't. I think latches doctrine needs to apply at some point. Otherwise we get to nitpick everything in history all the time. The Equal Protection Clause should be included as a restriction of states' rights. (On States' Rights issues I generally agree with Sandra Day O'Connor.)

superuser2 13y ago

>In other words, to what extent does this put schools in a circumstance where if they tolerate the t-shirt they get sueed by one group under Title VII and if they don't tolerate it they get sued by another group under Section 1983? Good question. I don't think that would pass for discrimination in the courts, but avoiding the lawsuit is an excellent reason for a school to disallow political speech in its dress code and enforce that uniformly (no pun intended). >Moreover suppose the school decides to teach Aristotelian social theory and starts out at the married household level. Is this discrimination? Is this a one-way street? My English summer reading one year was the first five books of the Tanakh. Lots of slavery, genocide, passing around women like property, etc. We also read the first chapter of Mein Kampf in German, and excerpts from the Communist Manifesto in History. Teaching ideas is not the same as preaching them. The courts are never going to rule against presenting what Aristotle thought in philosophy class. That's absurd. If the school decided to preach about the proper unit of family, people would be understandably pissed (including Christians who would rather that authority came from God than Aristotle), but teaching what Aristotle wrote about the proper unit of family as "this is what Aristotle wrote" is pretty cut and dried.

einhverfr 13y ago
> Good question. I don't think that would pass for discrimination in the courts, but avoiding the lawsuit is an excellent reason for a school to disallow political speech in its dress code and enforce that uniformly (no pun intended). How far does this go? Imagine a T-shirt which is intentionally provocative and offensive. Something like: Free Speech "Kill the niggers... We intend to do our part..." -- Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 Now the offensive quote is from footnote 1 of the Supreme Court's majority opinion describing the speech at issue. It is some of the most vile speech one could imagine but it is protected due to extending precedents aimed at reining in McCarthy-era abuses. Or suppose it included a picture of a burning cross instead? (Cross burning has also been held in certain contexts to be free speech on the same basis.) Now if you are a black student you might be pardoned for assuming this is glorifying KKK activities and their rein of terror. It very well might create an unwelcoming educational atmosphere for minority kids and thus run afoul with the civil rights act. On the other hand what does this say about the rule of law? > The courts are never going to rule against presenting what Aristotle thought in philosophy class. I would have thought his Politics would be more appropriate for social studies. "This is the way societies work." Interestingly it is hard to understand modern sociology or anthropology without having a general understanding of Aristotle's approach here.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Simple. "Kill the niggers" advocates indiscriminate violence, which you are never under any circumstances allowed to do in a school. A more appropriate analogy would be "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a violation of states' rights and should be repealed." That was said in one of my classes. No one got suspended.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Right but the T-shirt is saying, in effect, "The Supreme Court said this was free speech." It is arguably only expounding how far the boundaries of free speech go. This is an interesting question because it gets to the heart of the question of how far free speech goes in school. I have trouble imagining a court holding that summarizing and quoting from a Supreme Court opinion is not free speech and protected (and the hypothetical T-shirt clearly does this), but I am also pretty sure the Southern Poverty Law Center would sue in a second if the school didn't take action. This is an example of a hypothetical where significant legal arguments could mean both that the school must act and also that the school must not act. It's even possible a school could be sued and lose on both sides. BTW, the states rights argument regarding the Civil Rights Act is more complex and it has to do with unconstitutional efforts to ensure ratification (refusing to seat Senators from non-ratifying states). My view however is that these could have been raised early on and weren't. I think latches doctrine needs to apply at some point. Otherwise we get to nitpick everything in history all the time. The Equal Protection Clause should be included as a restriction of states' rights. (On States' Rights issues I generally agree with Sandra Day O'Connor.)