ACLU Sues School Over Gay Pride Shirt Ban

[Makalakumu]

I doubt its that much of a distraction, Mike. It takes a second to read "Gay Pride." The kid didn't have a tome printed in small print on the shirt.

I bet it was more of a distraction then you think. Many of the people in question have been taught from birth to hate homosexuals...then to be suddenly faced with the demon in person...I'm sure the conditioned response was quite disruptive.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Some of us can be a bit distracted--and even more than a little insulted--by the smug t-shirts lots of fundamentalist Christian groups pass out, and by the militarist shirts we've seen on lots of occasions. If we can put up with that sort of nonsense, schoolkids can survive a "Gay Pride," message or two.

 

[redfang]

If the school doesn't want expressive clothing, then they should adopt uniforms. The city where I am, all the public school kids wear uniforms. No kids getting shot or beat up for their name brand shoes and clothes that way. Also, someone said that a shirt which reads "Gay Pride" is a political statement and should be allowed. I agree, but not everyone in this country would. Many people believe that such a slogan is as lewd and offensive as any. We live in a climate right now where restricting freedoms has become acceptable, either for "moral" reasons or "security". We are swinging farther to the right than we have been for a while. It is quite possible that the school is afraid to let parents think that it might be pro gay, or teaching their children "gay values". Witch hunts loom right around the corner.

 

[auxprix]

Well, it's such a slippery slope. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. On one hand, you can allow a shirt such as this (and you should, there is nothing vulgar about simply identifying one's self as a homosexual and people need to learn to accept that), but then the line always gets pushed by individuals, and the judgment call ultimately comes down from the administration.

On the other hand, you can come up with a strict school uniform dress code. The problem with this is that it is often a means of stomping out individuality, which is a principal our country is founded on. In a sense, I know that the school is getting what's coming to it, but I can't help but feel a little bad for the administration. My Godmother is a principal, so I hear all about the lightning rod issues. Dealing with this type of ordeal always results in them getting burned by one of the sides in conflict.

My best friend is gay. He didn't come out to anyone untill after graduation, because he was terrified. Now this is in one of the more liberal states in the union, so I can't imagine the terror closeted gay highschool students might feel in the bible belt. It shows that our education system still has a lot of growing to do as far as protecting their students go.

 

[Deuce]

I personally don't have anything against homosexuality, but I don't understand some people's need to post a banner accross their chest to advertise it. Same goes with the "Straight Pride" shirts. I get the feeling that the main motivation of wearing these shirts aren't to express themselves, but to start controversy and get people riled up.

I don't feel the need to let strangers know my background or beliefs by wearing a "I'm a straight roman catholic french white Canadian" shirt. First of all, any stranger who sees it, ain't going to care. Anyone who knows me who's sees it, already knows I'm those things and proud of it, so what's the point.

If I see someone wearing a "gay pride" shirt, I don't care if they're gay, I just wonder why they feel the need to tell me. It seems as though they wear the shirt to challange the beliefs of the anti-gay people who see it.

I'm all for freedom of expression and don't have a problem with any of these shirts, but like I said before, I think they're worn to push the bounderies and cause controversy.

Back to the original topic, he should be allowed to wear his "gay pride" shirt if anti-gay shirts are allowed, I just don't understand why they want to.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

When one is a member of a discriminated minority, one sometimes feels the need to draw attention to ones plight.

It seems that it is primarily in the regresive christian-influenced American mind that there is a problem with same-gender orientation. While we bill ourselfs as the "Land of the Free", other nations such as Canada have leapfroged us and picked up the torch that we dropped in our hurry to "cross ourselfs" against the gay deamons, come to redecorate us and haircut us until all fabric of our enlightened society is obliterated.

I hope this kid wins, I hope he wins big and I hope the result bankrupts that school system. There is no place in our education system for intollerant behavior. Not against anyone! You don't deny 1 while subtley encouraging the other.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Beyond the fact that this is a kid--and a trivial issue--one doesn't have anything against Protestant fundamentalists' beliefs, nor against some folks' hyperaggressive patriotism.

One simply doesn't see the reason that the rest of us have to see, and read, their constant expressions of their fringe beliefs on t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.

 

[raedyn]

People should keep their sexuality to themselves

Okay, sure. Sounds fair. So straight people should stop kissing and holding hands in the street, and stop having weddings that the publicly celebrate, and stop having children together and stop calling each other 'husband' and 'wife' because those are all public declarations of one's sexuality, too.

Often people who think they're being all progressive and fair minded will say "oh I don't mind if you're gay just I don't want to hear about it, keep it to yourself". I don't think they think about what an unfair double standard that is. Straightness asserts itself in grand fashion all over the damn place. Why should gay people be subjected to that?

I don't mind if you're straight, either. Just keep it to yourself, okay?

Do you see how that's a ridiculous thing to say?

If I see someone wearing a "gay pride" shirt, I don't care if they're gay, I just wonder why they feel the need to tell me. It seems as though they wear the shirt to challange the beliefs of the anti-gay people who see it.

You're probably right about that, Deuce. Lots of people think they've never met a gay person in real life. The vast majority of those people are wrong. You might be very surprised to learn some of the people you know that are gay. To find out that normal people you know and like are gay can really challenge the streotypes you have about what gay means. And it's a lot harder to demonize a group when you have a personal relationship with them. If you think you've never met a gay person and you have an idea in your head of what a gay person is like - this idea planted by gay-bashers and the fundamentalist christian right - then it's easier for you to get on board with the Let's Treat Gays Badly crowd. But if you knew yr favorite english teacher from high school was gay, and your buddy's mom is gay and that funny guy at work is gay, it's a lot harder to have all sorts of dreamt up ideas of what horrible creatures gay people are.

 

[Nightingale]

that's one of the points of a gay-straight alliance, to increase awareness that homosexuality and discrimination touch every one of our lives in one way or another. The alliance at my law school is probably 60% straight and 40% gay. A lot of people have a very different reaction when someone who is straight opens a dialogue with them about homosexuality, instead of someone who is gay. If the person in question has internalized a lot of anti-gay feelings, a straight person opening the dialogue to discuss it is a lot less threatening, in the same way that some white people were able to discuss the civil rights movement in the 60s with people who, in that era, might not have wanted to converse with a black person.

And as for the part about wanting to announce one's sexuality... nobody's ever gotten any kind of improvement in their situation by hiding. Awareness is what starts to get people thinking about an issue. I'd bet a lot of those kids in that school had never really thought about homosexuality, never knew they'd ever met a gay person, until they saw that kid's t-shirt. That is the point. Homosexuality has been around forever. It's about time that people stopped pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[MisterMike]

Okay, sure. Sounds fair. So straight people should stop kissing and holding hands in the street, and stop having weddings that the publicly celebrate, and stop having children together and stop calling each other 'husband' and 'wife' because those are all public declarations of one's sexuality, too.

I believe the context was MINORS in SCHOOL.

Somepeople do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I believe the context was MINORS in SCHOOL.

Somepeople do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans.

Raedyn's response to your post (#11) was valid. You said:

"People should keep their sexuality to themselves, or at least off the backs of their shirts so the kid behind them can concentrate on what the teacher's writing on the chalkboard."

She then responded by pointing out that public displays of sexual orientation and affection are common among people and that banning them would be silly. Your response was to attempt to set a double standard, as witnessed below.

You attempted to distract the conversation with your "mustache rides" t-shirt comment. Nobody in this thread or in the ACLU is calling for the allowance of such a non-political and vulgar t-shirt. However, you suggest Raedyn's response to your comment in post #11 was a distraction--which it wasn't. You didn't write "children should keep their sexuality to themselves," you wrote "people should keep their sexuality to themselves." She zinged you aptly and appropriately.

You further distract the issue by saying "Somepeople (sic) do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans."

The discussion was not about sex education, but about 1st Amendment rights. The t-shirt was not a sexual slogan, but a political one having to do with sexual orientation. Your "mustache rides" comment is suggestive of a sexual slogan. The t-shirts found at T-shirthell.com are sexual slogans. The "gay pride" shirt is not.

Deuce wrote:

"If I see someone wearing a "gay pride" shirt, I don't care if they're gay, I just wonder why they feel the need to tell me. It seems as though they wear the shirt to challange the beliefs of the anti-gay people who see it."

You answered your own question in part. The second half of your question is perhaps addressed here:

http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html


Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

Wow.

It never ceases to amaze me just how hung up some people are about sexuality and how ironic this is since not a one of us would be here without it.

Okay, so - I never want to see any Ozzy shirts (I'm an animal rights activist) and I don't want to see any pro-Bush or pro-Kerry shirts because I'm with the Green Party and I don't want to see any Grateful Dead or Judas Priest stuff, either because they depict evil images. I should not have to look at Pro-Life or Pro-choice propaganda, be exposed to any type of advertising, have to look at images or messages from Martin Luther King, the Pope, the Bible, the Quran, the Agnostic's handbook, Sharp Phil's magazine, Martial Talk, Hotmail, AOL, Newsweek, High Times, Rolling Stone, images of war on television, images of peace on television, see people wearing crosses or Stars of David around their necks, images of the KKK or Little Debi versus Betty Crocker.

These images disturb me and disrupt my thinking patterns. Why should I have to look at these things?

You know - I have the solution, folks! Let's all wear cargo pants with no pockets with brown belts, white button-down collared oxford shirts, loafers, wear the same hairstyles, drive the same cars, use the same fuel, wear no jewelry, ban all music, television, computer service, educational systems, periodicals and any and all symbolism whatsoever. We would all attend the same church and espouse the same beliefs with no variants, brands, smells, tastes, etcetera. All take-out food would be the same, healthy, tasteless and odor-free vitamin paste and be healthy for you.

We will all walk the same, live in exactly the same houses with the same color paint, same number of rooms, same layout, same landscaping. We'll all have the same hairstyle, and since some men are bald, all men will be bald, and since some women are balding, all women will be bald as well. We will unlock the genetic codes to skin and eye color and will all be programmed in the test tube to look exactly the same, sound the same and be the same height. We will eliminate all maladies, illnesses, ugliness, obesity, desires, dreams, hopes and values by genetic elimination. We will have a uniform code of language - approved words and disapproved words. And we will never die.

Please. If you don't want to read the T-shirt or think thoughts provoked by the message on it, monitor your own thoughts ... and eyes. Are you in control of your faculties or not? If not, better watch out, because I'm sure someone else will gladly volunteer to control your mind for you.

:asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Lots of interesting posts here.

The issue at hand was the fact that a "gay pride" shirt - which I would agree is not "sexual" but an identity/political shirt - was not allowed, but things like "I *heart* lesbians", worn by straight males, which is a sexual-content shirt, were allowed. Clear double-standard.

If T-shirts of any nature are too much for a school system, they may implement a dress code - i.e. no T-shirts (which bear the vast majority of garment 'chatter'), but polo, button-down, etc shirts are OK. After a change like that, however, you may still have kids with "gay pride" (or "save the whales", or "I hate everything") stickers on their books, backpacks, and so forth.

What makes me a bit sad about this particular case is that, compared to a lot of the stuff I've seen, "Gay Pride" is so simple, and so (to me) innocuous.

 

[MisterMike]

Raedyn's response to your post (#11) was valid. You said:

"People should keep their sexuality to themselves, or at least off the backs of their shirts so the kid behind them can concentrate on what the teacher's writing on the chalkboard."

She then responded by pointing out that public displays of sexual orientation and affection are common among people and that banning them would be silly. Your response was to attempt to set a double standard, as witnessed below.

No it wasn't.

You attempted to distract the conversation with your "mustache rides" t-shirt comment. Nobody in this thread or in the ACLU is calling for the allowance of such a non-political and vulgar t-shirt.

No I didn't. It was an example of yet another form of free speech that may not be allowed in certain environments.

However, you suggest Raedyn's response to your comment in post #11 was a distraction--which it wasn't. You didn't write "children should keep their sexuality to themselves," you wrote "people should keep their sexuality to themselves." She zinged you aptly and appropriately.

You further distract the issue by saying "Somepeople (sic) do not want sex ed taught there, much less kids running around with sexual slogans."

The discussion was not about sex education, but about 1st Amendment rights. The t-shirt was not a sexual slogan, but a political one having to do with sexual orientation. Your "mustache rides" comment is suggestive of a sexual slogan. The t-shirts found at T-shirthell.com are sexual slogans. The "gay pride" shirt is not.

Yes it is. Political as well as sexual in nature. A double standard for the school to take action on one style vs. another, yes. But I've already made it clear there shouldn't be any such wording on students' clothes. That's just me. Well, and obviously one school board as well.

I'm curious, do you also like to see the teenage girls with words like "Juicy" written across their jean bottoms? Seems to be a new fad in the schools as well. I suppose the First Ammendment also guarantees that right as well but again, is it appropriate in the school setting? Obviously the parents don't mind.

 

[deadhand31]

I'm curious, do you also like to see the teenage girls with words like "Juicy" written across their jean bottoms? Seems to be a new fad in the schools as well. I suppose the First Ammendment also guarantees that right as well but again, is it appropriate in the school setting? Obviously the parents don't mind.

I really don't like the direction that young girls fashion is taking. I remember when after my neice started attending a public school, she said that her shorts weren't short enough because "they didn't show off her butt." She was 6 years old at the time. This is also from an area where the local k-mart was selling thongs with the term "Eye-candy" written on them sized for 5-8 year olds. I would draw the "sexual overtones" line WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY before any of those things.

If a person wants to wear something like straight pride, gay pride, bi-pride, asexual pride, etc.. that's fine. Saying that I'm proud to be straight doesn't put any sexual overtones to anything, unless I go into detail about my heterosexual activities. If a person really wants to be proud of who they are, fine. However, I tend to be rather apathetic when it comes to sexuality. If a person says "I'm gay!" My typical response would be "Oh." Personally, that's the kind of response I feel would be best within society.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm curious, do you also like to see the teenage girls with words like "Juicy" written across their jean bottoms? Seems to be a new fad in the schools as well. I suppose the First Ammendment also guarantees that right as well but again, is it appropriate in the school setting? Obviously the parents don't mind.

No. I don't. I don't approve of middle school (or for that matter high school) girls wearing bare midriff shirts and rolled down shorts. I cracked on one girl in my martial arts school for wearing a shirt that said "If you're cute, I'm single." She's fourteen. We have a dress code that reflects the standard of the local schools. No obscenity, nothing sexually suggestive, nothing glorifying drugs or alcohol. "Gay Pride" shirts are allowed. We've never had to deal with that issue, but if it comes up, I know how we'll handle it.

And no, the First Amendment doesn't allow for that "juicy" shirt. As to whether it allows for a "Gay Pride" shirt hasn't been yet established by the courts. But it isn't sexually suggestive, Mike. The kid didn't have "B**w me, I'm Gay" on it. He had a shirt identifying him as a minority and proud of it. Given that the sodomy laws of thirteen states were overturned by the Supremes last year and that Gay marriage has been one of the hot driving political topics in the last election, I think it safe to say this kid had a political agenda.

The shirt doesn't conjure up fantasies of a sexual nature nor was it intended to identify the kid for other Gay kids (they know who they are usually). Now if it conjures up sexual images for YOU Mike, which it clearly seems to from all you've written, then I'm surprised. This is simply faaabulous.

You're not holding back on us, are you? You're not maybe a one or a two on that Kinsey scale, perhaps?

Regards,


Steve

 

[Tgace]

While I can agree with the concept of banning shirts with sexual content, I cant back the school if they arent being equal with the rules enforcement. It applies to all the students or none of them IMHO.

 

[raedyn]

There is more to being gay than the sex. A shirt that declares "I'm gay" is no more sexual than a shirt saying "I'm married". It's just not sexual.

Often people make the mistake of equating gayness only with the sexual aspect. I've discovered "sexual orientation" is a misnomer. For gay & straight people alike there is more to their 'orientation' than the sex. There are celibate gay people & celibate straight people but they don't stop being gay or straight just because they stop having sex.

 

[Tgace]

Gay/Homosexuality is a sexual preference. It would be like wearing a shirt that said "Im heterosexual" more than "Im married". Personally, I dont think it should even be an issue. You like what you like and are free to do so. Issues that impact me/society like public benefits/marriage should be open for debate, but otherwise.....

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Gay/Homosexuality is a sexual preference. It would be like wearing a shirt that said "Im heterosexual" more than "Im married". Personally, I dont think it should even be an issue. You like what you like and are free to do so. Issues that impact me/society like public benefits/marriage should be open for debate, but otherwise.....

What with you being straight, I don't see how Gay marriage would impact you...unless you're a preacher or a divorce attorney. But that's another thread. Maybe you could steer me to places where you've posted your thoughts on that.

The point of a person being celibate and gay is an interesting observation. A person's sexual drive is independent of their orientation. Some people have almost no sexual drive, but identify themselves as either gay, straight, or bisexual based upon their minimal libidos. At the extreme they're considered asexual.

How about a shirt that says "Asexual and proud of it!" Would that distract you in a classroom, Mike? Or would your mind go blank?

Makes one wonder if asexuals fantasize about not having sex.


Regards,


Steve