Thread: Tarnished Liberty

But isn't complete freedom in itself an illusion?
Afterall, we are never completely free to do what we want...
For example, dress code in high school.
Should students actually be allowed to wear what they want?
At my old high school, the principal's reason for not allowing tube tops in school was that it is a distraction for the males.
More and more parents of America are letting things slide and not creating enough boundaries for thier children. The school system of America should be restrictive and instill respect in America's youth.
As for the problem with the school system, parents defending thier kids. Example: little "Timmy" yells in class a swear word and is heard by the teacher, he panics and trys to run out of the room and the teacher catchs him by the arm. Who is wrong in the parents' eyes? The teacher for 'harming' thier little son Timmy.
With teen violence and sexual activity on the rise, it is about time that the school system gain more power.

Kulurs, remember this "with rights comes responsability", students need to be responsible for their learning atmosphere, and lets face it, a majority would rather be at home sleeping, so rules have to be set. A dress code, while I admit some of them are asanine, would you want some kid showing up to school naked? Language, not really much of an issue, if I get up and yell fuck you in the middle of English, sure there will be some issues, but just talking to myself or friends, noone cares. Its not a matter of tarnished liberty, its a matter of what's best for the students and the learning atmosphere of the school.

Just wanted to point one thing out, great article, btw.

Dresscode wouldnt be an issue if the education system was privatized. The proprietors would be able to decide what one can wear depending on the particular institution. That's real freedom.

Originally posted by Big_Mac@Jul 10 2003, 02:48 AM
Dress code wouldn't be an issue if the education system was privatized. The proprietors would be able to decide what one can wear depending on the particular institution.

Bigz, I couldn't have said it better myself. .

Nate and Mav, I totally like that you guys took the time to reply--your responses were very in-depth.

However, I disagree with both of you.

Mav--one thing in particular that I noticed in your post is, for lack of a better word, your "conservative-ness." You repeated over and over using different analogies the need to "instill respect in America's youth."

Does "instill[ing] respect" necessarily have to involve the demolition of the First Amendment? Your example of the "tube tops" that were banned per the principal's assessment of them as being "a distraction to [the male students]" is a quintessential example of the absurdity of school administrators in justifying tearing apart our civil liberties. I see nowhere in the Supreme Court's ruling where any article of clothing--which is, in itself, a form of "symbolic speech", as quoted from previous Court opinions--can be banned simply because a single administrator deems it a "distraction."

To quote directly from the majority opinion delivered by the Court in Tinker vs. Des Moines and prepared by Justice Abe Fortas:

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes... .

Both of you also included statements in your posts that are wrought with ambiguity.

Nate said "it's not a matter of tarnished liberty, it's a matter of what's best for the students." Mav said that school administrators are justified in limiting their students' freedoms because of such things as "[the rise of] sexual activity," even going so far as to use the word "restrictive" whilst describing his idea of how schools should be run.

There are two problems within those statements. First of all--everyone has a different opinion as to "what's best for the students." Thus, you encounter the problem of having an education system where every administrator has a different idea as to "what's best," and the personal feelings of everyone from principals to the presidents of school boards become involved in the decision-making process as to which rules would "best" serve the students' interests. Arguments ensue; the vice-principal may think "tube tops" are okay, the principal may think they're more sexually explicit than Showgirls.

The First Amendment--if followed properly along with the Court's ruling that only those things that directly and "substantially interfere" with school proceedings can be curtailed--would eliminate that type of problem. Personal opinions as to "what's best" don't become involved. Only speech or clothing that jeopardizes a student's safety or ability to learn could then be "banned"--as in, for an example, someone who, as Nate said, shouted throughout a particular class. That is a "substantial" interference, as students actually would be impeded from learning due to a single student's speech that immediately stops the learning process by interrupting the teacher and prohibiting her from teaching. "Tube tops", on the other hand, do not "substantially interfere" with anyone's education--they were banned at Mav's school due simply to the personal opinion of a single administrator. A "tube top" does not interrupt the teacher, nor does it pose any real threat to safety.

Mav's comment about increasing "sexual activity" among students, and his assertion that schools should attempt to stop it, is entirely misguided. First of all, engaging in "sexual activity" is a personal choice--a person's body is his or her own property, and, thus, he or she has an implicit Constitutional right to do whatever he or she pleases with it so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Secondly, I fail to see why it is that schools should have any business interfering in such areas, nor do I see how butchering the First Amendment could ever be justified by claiming it will lead to decreased teen pregnancies. People--including students--have the right to make their own choices, whether those choices are "good" or not.

Finally, I'd like to point out that what Bigz said is entirely true. Private schools are not bound in any way to follow the First Amendment; they can impose any dress, speech, or, in Mav's case, "sexual" code they see fit. I have no problem with that. It is a student's choice to attend a private school; he or she does not have to be there, as it is a private institution and they can go to any one they desire, whereas students who attend public school are required to attend the one assigned them by district.

And so it is only when state-run public schools do not follow the Constitution that a problem arises--and it is when I see people consciously allowing these exceptions to our Constitution that I realize it is a problem that needs to be fixed now.

Originally posted by (= Kulyrs =)@Jul 10 2003, 11:19 PM
Does "instill[ing] respect" necessarily have to involve the demolition of the First Amendment?


First of all--everyone has a different opinion as to "what's best for the students." Thus, you encounter the problem of having an education system where every administrator has a different idea as to "what's best," and the personal feelings of everyone from principals to the presidents of school boards become involved in the decision-making process as to which rules would "best" serve the students' interests. Arguments ensue; the vice-principal may think "tube tops" are okay, the principal may think they're more sexually explicit than Showgirls.

The First Amendment--if followed properly along with the Court's ruling that only those things that directly and "substantially interfere" with school proceedings can be curtailed--would eliminate that type of problem. Personal opinions as to "what's best" don't become involved. Only speech or clothing that jeopardizes a student's safety or ability to learn could then be "banned"--as in, for an example, someone who, as Nate said, shouted throughout a particular class. That is a "substantial" interference, as students actually would be impeded from learning due to a single student's speech that immediately stops the learning process by interrupting the teacher and prohibiting her from teaching. "Tube tops", on the other hand, do not "substantially interfere" with anyone's education--they were banned at Mav's school due simply to the personal opinion of a single administrator. A "tube top" does not interrupt the teacher, nor does it pose any real threat to safety.

Mav's comment about increasing "sexual activity" among students, and his assertion that schools should attempt to stop it, is entirely misguided. First of all, engaging in "sexual activity" is a personal choice--a person's body is his or her own property, and, thus, he or she has an implicit Constitutional right to do whatever he or she pleases with it so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Secondly, I fail to see why it is that schools should have any business interfering in such areas, nor do I see how butchering the First Amendment could ever be justified by claiming it will lead to decreased teen pregnancies. People--including students--have the right to make their own choices, whether those choices are "good" or not.

Finally, I'd like to point out that what Bigz said is entirely true. Private schools are not bound in any way to follow the First Amendment; they can impose any dress, speech, or, in Mav's case, "sexual" code they see fit. I have no problem with that. It is a student's choice to attend a private school; he or she does not have to be there, as it is a private institution and they can go to any one they desire, whereas students who attend public school are required to attend the one assigned them by district.

1) Yes, by your definition of free speech and the inability of most people to know the difference between slander and free speech.

2) Very true, but allowing the administrator to decide what's right and wrong allievates the controversy. Afterall, we do live in a Democratic Republic. That is, if the people of the majority dislike the way the administrator handles things, they can vote him/her out of office. It is the difference between the public and the school board...20,000 people and 9 people.

3) For the fact of the "tube top" case was that the single administrator that decided that they were a distraction was VOTED into office. (this was in middle school by the way lol)

4) True, sexual activity is a personal choice. However, I'll use the example of statutory rape, when the girl or boy that is statutorially raped sues, it is the PARENTS choice to press charges or not. Why? because it is thier dependent. I'd wager my life savings that most parents in the United States would want thier children to be taught sexual conservativeness rather than the "i'll do what i want with my body." When these children are 18..fine..let them wear what they want, but when they are under the restriction of thier parents, who mostlikely want them not to be wearing what they do or seeing what they see, let the ELECTED official handle it.

5) If these private schools recieved ANY government funding (at all, this includes lunch aides, etc) they would have to abide by regulations. Example: at my high school (it was private) we had to abide by Title IX, even though many parents claimed it was taking away from larger programs (like football). Granted...if we privitize all schools and provide vouchers, then this would no longer be a problem..but until then, let the administrators decide what is best for the students.

Colours, luv, you know how much I respect you and appreciate that you would like to be in my English class, right? Good, because I have some questions for you:

So this hot girl is in a public high school wearing a tube top. Forget the distraction to the fellas, let's think about the male teachers role in this. She goes to first hour, her male English teacher raises his eyebrow as she walks by. She notices. She slaps sexual harassment on him. He gets fired. His teaching career is over.

Ok, you know what... let's even take out the "hot" label. Let's even imagine that she is kind of homely. And since tube tops are the fashion, it doesn't matter what you look like, you can still wear one. So the same teacher raises his eyebrow. Same situation ensues.

Further... let's look at this eyebrow raising, or any other non-verbal, minor response. All those things can be construed as sexually harassing. He could still likely be brought to task and canned, be it a tube top, a short skirt, a low cut blouse, or any other revealing clothing.

My questions: What rights does the male teacher have? How is he protected by his First Ammendment rights?

Originally posted by Maverick@Jul 11 2003, 09:10 AM
1) Yes, by your definition of free speech and the inability of most people to know the difference between slander and free speech.

2) Very true, but allowing the administrator to decide what's right and wrong allievates the controversy. Afterall, we do live in a Democratic Republic. That is, if the people of the majority dislike the way the administrator handles things, they can vote him/her out of office. It is the difference between the public and the school board...20,000 people and 9 people.

3) For the fact of the "tube top" case was that the single administrator that decided that they were a distraction was VOTED into office. (this was in middle school by the way lol)

4) True, sexual activity is a personal choice. However, I'll use the example of statutory rape, when the girl or boy that is statutorially raped sues, it is the PARENTS choice to press charges or not. Why? because it is thier dependent. I'd wager my life savings that most parents in the United States would want thier children to be taught sexual conservativeness rather than the "i'll do what i want with my body." When these children are 18..fine..let them wear what they want, but when they are under the restriction of thier parents, who mostlikely want them not to be wearing what they do or seeing what they see, let the ELECTED official handle it.

5) If these private schools recieved ANY government funding (at all, this includes lunch aides, etc) they would have to abide by regulations. Example: at my high school (it was private) we had to abide by Title IX, even though many parents claimed it was taking away from larger programs (like football). Granted...if we privitize all schools and provide vouchers, then this would no longer be a problem..but until then, let the administrators decide what is best for the students.

Response to Mav

[To see my response to Kat, please go farther down the page.]

I totally like the numbers thing, Mav---I'm going to do that in my responses, too, LOL. They coincide with yours--for example, my #1 is the response to your #1, and so on.

1) I have a simple answer for this one. Anyone who abuses his or her right to free speech and starts speaking slanderously should be punished. I have no problem with that. Slander is wrong. However, restricting free speech rights to prevent slander is even worse. Preventive law as such abuses the rights of everyone, not just those who slander---so, my answer is: punish the slander-er after they abuse their free speech rights, don't attempt to prevent slander by unconstitutionally limiting the liberties of the First Amendment. That would be like me taking away your scissors because you "might" cut yourself or someone else.

2) I also have no problem with administrators doing their assigned duties to protect the interests of the students, as you said. However, like I pointed out earlier, the majority, as you assert, doesn't always rule. For example, an entire community and an entire school population may want to ban African-Americans from attending---can they do it? No, of course not. The Supreme Court would stop them immeadiately--whether a majority had supported the segregation or not. And until that majority could somehow pass a Constitutional amendment allowing them the right to ban students of colour, they would NOT have the right to do it, as set forth by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and various Civil Rights Acts.

Again--administrators DO have the power of in loco parentis, and they can ban or restrict certain things that could not be banned or restricted outside of school, but they have to be careful when they do either of those things so as to not infringe too far upon their students' civil rights. For, as Justice Fortas says--

"[Administrators] have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights."

3) As for the "tube top" restriction being voted in by a panel, I was not aware of that. However, again, just because a majority put that rule in place does not exempt it from Constitutional scrutiny. If the Supreme Court were to rule that prohibiting "tube tops" from a school environment is unconstitutional, then the administrators would have to allow their students to wear those "tube tops", whether they and the majority of the community liked it or not.

4) You're starting to get into in loco parentis territory here. That is, of course, the idea that once a child is at school, administrators and teachers then wield certain parental rights over them--i.e., the same rights all our "Mommies and Daddies " have over us as minors while we're under eighteen and living at home. However, I think that an administrator punishing a student for his or her sexual transgressions oversteps the boundaries of the rights given them by in loco parentis. For example, if I had sex, came to school, told my principal about it and was then punished, that's completely unconstitutional. He would only have the right to tell my parents about it, not punish me for it. That's my parents' job, which is fine. Parents are under no Constitutional obligations at that point, other than the fact that they cannot neglect or abuse their children. So, yeah, I agree with you to a certain point--parents can tell their kids what and what not to wear and be completely in the right, whereas administrators only have a certain fraction of those same parental rights. They walk a very thin line--and one that I (and, most likely, the Courts) think they cross in matters of sexual activity.

5) Yes, if private schools were to somehow have any ties to the government, no matter how small, they are, at that point, obligated to follow the liberties set forth in the Constitution and other laws and acts as applicable to education. Which would also mean they could no longer have any religious bias, et cetera, et cetera (i.e., they could no longer, at that point, be exclusively Christian or Muslim, for example.) And that is only fair. If a student does not want to attend a public school, and feels that it is too liberal or 'radical', or that student has a certain religious or philosophical slant that they feel is not adequately represented in state schools, then, by all means, he or she should go to a private school. But while attending public school, he or she will have to accept that certain things may go on there that he or she doesn't necessarily like or agree with, all in the name of freedom and the Constitution.

---

Response to Kat

(Oh, yeah! LOL--just as a sidenote before I start my response, you as my fav English teacher should be so totally proud of me -- HEE-HEE, I just got my AP English test score back in the mail today, and I got a 5!!! WOO-HOO! LOL, I was, seriously, totally amazed. But anyway, enough ego-building on my part, HEHE. I just thought you totally should know, being my ideal English teacher and all, .)

As to the rights of the teacher, in the case of a student falsely accusing him (or her, however the case may be) of sexual harrassment---well, it's hard to say. But I don't think prohibiting any type of clothing is going to stop that completely; a girl could be wearing a full, baggy body suit and still claim she was "sexually harrassed" when a teacher looked at her the wrong way.

At that point, it isn't a Constitutional issue; it becomes a matter of civil (or criminal) law, a question as to which person to believe. And, unfortunate as the case may be, you're exactly right---it's oftentimes the student who is believed, based on the fact that, truthfully, certain types of sexual harrassment can't be concretely proven. It's like The Crucible--how do we know who's a witch and who's not? Well, it just depends on whose story you accept: the accuser or the accused.

However, like I said, I don't think that the Constitution--other than giving the teacher and the student the right to a fair and impartial trial--has much to say about sexual harrassment. That all just comes down to laws, and, of course, whoever the judge or the jury thinks is telling the truth.

The question was really addressed to me, but I'm gonna answer it anyway, whether Culus agrees or not.

Sexual harrassment laws, or the ones that don't involve physical harrassment at least, are an infringement on the 'First Amendment' (sorry, I don't 'do' constitution material). So the public school system doesn't have anything to do with it.

I was kinda hopin you'd give your opinion on private education, though.

A few points in response to this long, drawn out, and mostly illogical argument.

First of all, minors do not have the same rights that adults have. Its as simple as that. If we're talking about kids up until the age of 18, they don't even qualify for all the protections you imply that the Bill of Rights affords them. They're not allowed to drink until they're 21 either. There's all sorts of exceptions to the *GENERAL* rule of "freedom". Nobody has complete freedom, hate to break it to you.

Second of all, school boards are responsible to the students and their legal guardians, their parents most of the time. They are endowed by said parents with certain controls over their children, including the ability to set dress codes, behaviour standards, etc.

Thirdly, I don't even think that education is enshrined as a right in the constitution. As with all things, parents can choose not to send their kids to school and teach them at home, and let them come naked to class, wearing swastika's, or dressed in the latest Marilyn Manson gear.

No, the kids can't choose not to go to school because they are still minors in the eyes of the law. This is the way it was intended in the constitution and bill of rights. You can argue that their rights are being trampled on until you're blue in the face, but the fact is all you're doing is coming off as a kid whose upset that they were told not to bring the cell phone that his parents paid for into class.

If you think that kids are less free now than in the 60's.. Well you just haven't been alive long enough.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Yet, steadily and slowly, the immediate effects from Tinker vs. Des Moines are starting to be less and less respected. Students are still told what to wear and what to say under despotic “dress” and “speech” codes, library books are censored for students’ “protection”, and an Internet “firewall” prevents students from viewing “questionable” material.[/b]

And in response to this drivel... You make it sound as though immediately after that case was heard, kids were wearing whatever they wanted to class, shouting out profanities whenever they wanted, and acting however they wanted. All that really happened is that a girl was allowed to wear a peace symbol. And this began the trend that we see today.. Do you think people were wearing tube tops [to school] in the 60&#39;s?

Your choice of words, "despotic", is almost laughable. As though the school boards of America are some great tyranny. By the way, where did you learn your grammar? You do write pretty well, I&#39;ll give you that. I guess your schooling was good for something. But apparently they didn&#39;t teach you how to follow a logical procession in an argument.

Students are free to go out and purchase whatever books they want, but that doesn&#39;t mean a school board has the responsibility to supply every single book available to students. And the internet connection is paid for and maintained by the school, why shouldn&#39;t THEY have the absolute freedom over what is and isn&#39;t viewed? Wouldn&#39;t you be restricting their freedom by telling them that they had to let students view any webpage they wanted? Seems like a double standard to me.

Anyway...

You and I have disagreed from the moment you first posted on this board. You think that my arguments are naive and illogical, and the result of a desire to somehow seek revenge on the education system for "wronging" me in the past; I think your arguments reveal a person who has no inherent faith in the goodness of youth or humanity, and a man who has been soured by what he sees as "the evils of the world" enough to not even attempt to examine the possibility that our country and the idea of freedom itself could both be changed in ways so as to make them better than they are at present.

However--though we may continue to disagree on subjects and issues of importance--I do not wish to continue this personal vendetta we both seem to hold against each other, and I hope that I can hereby offer a sincere apology for any things I may have said to personally offend you in the past.

It is obvious we have different viewpoints on things; however, from here on out, I hope that the subtle--and not-so-subtle--jibes at each other&#39;s inherent character or intelligence as human beings will cease on both sides.

I am not trying to be &#39;holier-than-thou&#39; by offering this apology, nor am I implying that I am any better of a person than you are--I simply wish to extend my hand in a gesture of "agreeing to disagree" on terms of friendship (or, at the very least, tolerance of one another.)

I hope that you&#39;ll accept my apology, and that in the future we can continue to share ideas in a more conducive atmosphere that is not nearly as unfriendly or intolerant.

Kulyrs that was an impressive article. Although I am inclined to take the center ground between you and Badjew, it was still incredible. First of all when you go to write an article, do you just pull this info out of the top of you head or do you read about the subject, then write an article? And what grade are you in? 12, because your English is amazing, something I want to achieve, so did it come naturally, or not? And which classes did you take to improve it? Wow, cool article...