| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: Brian Webber on 10/21/2001; 6:43 PM After two students from a group called the "Trench Coat Mafia" armed themselves with guns and homemade bombs and went on a murder rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., authorities in Portsmouth, N.H., responded in impeccably logical fashion. They moved to head off trouble in their schools by banning . . . trench coats. If O.J. Simpson had murdered two people in Portsmouth, the city elders would have outlawed Heisman Trophies. I made a survey earlier, on the subject of trench coats. http://www.voicesofunreason.com/essays/wearingatrenchcoatisnotacrime But they have plenty of company in thinking that a little hysteria never hurt anyone. Schools in several other towns joined in the trench coat ban, with untold consequences for London Fog. A Maryland county outdid them, forbidding not only long coats but "bulky, oversize" ones. Students in Illinois have been sent home merely for wearing black. Some school administrators prohibited backpacks after waking up in a cold sweat at a terrifying realization: Book bags might contain something besides books. More alert minds can detect dangers even further afield. A Virginia student who had been sporting blue hair since December was suspended after Littleton under a new policy against "unusual or unique hair colors." Officials reasoned that "in view of the circumstances that have occurred recently . . . unusual activities/appearances should not be ignored." Why stop at novel colors? Hordes of blond cheerleaders could be affected by a Massachusetts legislator's bill making it illegal to sell hair dye of any shade to those under 18. The city council in Pittsfield, Mass., fell just short of approving a measure outlawing "flamboyant and excessively morbid" clothing on students. School uniforms are gaining popularity, a trend that can be expected to end with all pupils wearing orange jumpsuits. Thoughts and words are also being treated like deadly weapons. Eleven high schoolers were suspended in Brimfield, Ohio, for the crime of contributing to a Web site exploring "gothic" themes. A boy in Virginia was arrested after writing an essay that featured a fictional student with a nuclear weapon strapped to his chest. A 14-year-old girl in Harrisburg, Pa., was strip-searched and suspended for two weeks for saying, during a classroom discussion of the Littleton massacre, that she could understand how ostracized students might turn homicidal. If she could understand it, she could do it, right? The kids who committed the murders at Columbine High School were a little different, so hypervigilant adults have reached the conclusion that anything different is fraught with peril. Their solution is to ban first and come up with a reason afterward, in an attempt to impose a suffocating conformity within the walls of every school. The main effect of this ostentatious toughness--and possibly its underlying purpose--is not to minimize genuine hazards but to disabuse teenagers of the idea that they are entitled to any respect or freedom. But students ought to be judged according to their behavior on things that matter, not their appearance or any idle thought they happen to express. A kid who threatens or strikes a schoolmate should be disciplined, just as an adult behaving that way would be penalized. One who composes a story about a nuclear terrorist, on the other hand, is no more deserving of punishment than Tom Clancy. Fantasy and reality are separate categories. Turning schools into replicas of medium-security prisons is excellent preparation for living in North Korea but not a good way to develop responsible citizens fit for a free society. As the Supreme Court said in a 1969 decision overturning a school ban on black armbands used to protest the Vietnam War, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights of freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Expressing thoughts that annoy other people is no grounds for suspension. And conduct that does not fall under constitutional guarantees (such as wearing weird clothes) shouldn't be outlawed merely because it's unconventional. Schools ought to concentrate on behavior that creates a real danger or obstructs education--carrying weapons, threatening or attacking people, disrupting class and the like. Seeing a threat in every backpack or funny hairstyle is a symptom of irrational panic, not sensible caution. Perfect safety will never be achieved, in high schools or anywhere else, and the effort to eliminate every conceivable risk, no matter what the cost, will affect a great deal that is harmless and very little that is truly dangerous. In the end, the vigorous and forcible suppression of non-conformists probably won't even advance the goal of combating violence. Teenagers aren't likely to be taught respect for others by adults who show no respect for them.
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: Evan on 5/16/2001; 12:38 PM I understand what you mean. They've got some seriously flawed logic here. They seem to be working along the lines of "oh the people who do school shootings were nonconformists, therefore all nonconformists will shoot people". It simply doesn't work that way. The nonconformism in of itself is a good thing, at least as far as I'm concerned. The repression of the freedom of expression is wrong. Freedom of expression is so broadly defined within the Bill of Rights that it can be construed to cover virtually anything that any person does. Therefore banning trenchcoats or weird hair colors or inflating rubber gloves(thank goodness my school didn't ban that)actually violates everyone's rights. The only schools that can legitmately do this are private schools and even then its still wrong. What they are doing won't even seriously help their cause as the people who are truly school shooters will still be going to school, they will actually probably be more bitter about life in general because of the unfair regulations. The stamping out of weirdness could cause violent retaliation in people who are not normally that violent and provoke the ones who are.
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: Brian Carnell on 5/16/2001; 1:15 PM Therefore banning trenchcoats or weird hair colors or inflating rubber gloves(thank goodness my school didn't ban that)actually violates everyone's rights. The only schools that can legitmately do this are private schools and even then its still wrong. Actually the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that public schools have the broad power to ban any speech (including clothing) that is disruptive and/or runs counter to the educational mission of the school. In fact the Supreme Court was recently asked to overturn a lower court ruling which affirmed the right of a school to ban Marilyn Manson t-shirts. The SC refused to take the case without comment, probably because the power to ban such shirts is clearly within the jurisdiction of school officials. The difference between private schools and public school is that public schools cannot engage in viewpoint-based -- specifically religous -- discrimation while private schools can. There was another case involving t-shirts, for example, where a school allowed some students to where t-shirts saying something like "Gay and Proud" but then forbade other students from wearing t-shirts that said something like "Straight and Proud." Similarly, a school could ban all jewlery, but almost certainly couldn't say that a necklace with a cross on it is okay, but wearing a necklace with a Star of David is forbidden. At least technology is solving one of the long-time vexing problems -- student newspapers. Censorship of student newspapers has long been a serious area of contention, but now many students are simply moving their controversial stuff to the web where school authorities cannot censor them.
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: Brian Carnell on 5/16/2001; 1:19 PM Oops. I forgot to mention that a district court ruled that allowing "Gay and Proud" shirts while banning "Straight and Proud" shirts was unconstitutional since it constituted a pretty blatant form of viewpoint discrimination.
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: Evan on 5/16/2001; 2:17 PM Well shame on them. I believe that the only limitations placed upon people's rights to free expression should be the safety of oneself and other people. Then again I'm not on the supreme court so I have no control over interpretation of the law. The intentions of the people are good with banning all sorts of stuff but I'm pretty sure its not going to work. The ones who would commit school shootings will still do them anyway, as the trenchcoats or the weird hair color have nothing to do with their motivation. These kids do these sorts of things because of their resentment about being ostracized. By kicking them out of school for the minor things they do, the school officials will probably precipitate the situation that they are attempting to avoid with the bans.
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: ScottN on 5/16/2001; 10:08 PM Similarly, a school could ban all jewlery, but almost certainly couldn't say that a necklace with a cross on it is okay, but wearing a necklace with a Star of David is forbidden. Guess what. Some school did that, on the grounds that it was a "gang symbol". See this article. I believe they retracted the policy. To find more links, you can do a google search on +"Star of David" +gang +school
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: Brian Carnell on 5/16/2001; 10:30 PM At 10:25 PM 5/16/2001 -0400, ScottN wrote: >Similarly, a school could ban all jewlery, but almost certainly couldn't >say that a necklace with a cross on it is okay, but wearing a necklace >with a Star of David is forbidden. > >Guess what. Some school did that, on the grounds that it was a "gang symbol". Right, but if they hadn't retracted their policy the ACLU would have had an easy legal victory.
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: Brian Webber on 5/24/2001; 7:28 PM ScottN: That story really pissed me off! I am amazed at the lengths these so-called educators will go to supress the slightest hint of indivualism. Who was it that said, Anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither?
RE: Combating Violence By Bullying Students By: David Loredo on 10/19/2003; 8:20 PM banning trench coats, jewelry and clothing with contreversial statements printed on them. After all the religious wars, all the burnings of witches and all those "i have a dream" speeches its amazing how ignorant the people making the laws today can be. Its fucken ironic if you ask me. Their ignorence of the thought that motivates individalism blocks them from reaching any logical solution. They think its the clothing that generates the hate in uniformality. L M F A O. What was once an expression through clothing could become rencor for the system wich would then result in a frustration over time that would damage the individual and possibly everyone he or she comes in contact with. "oh yeah.. they all wore trench coats... so if we ban them no more shootings! were smart... here sign here so it comes in to effect." By doing a half ass job to make the public believe that theyre doing everything in their power to correct what is wrong theyre just making it worse. But hey you guys voted for these S O B's so youre stuck with them... But sadly its not the people who voted who get bitten in the ass , its the children. "wont someone please think of the children!" Which brings in to mind californias governer... oh my. what the heck were those guys thinking?! ANyway polititians are people who believe they can change the world through speeches and false promises. I bet george washington, thomas jefferson and abraham lincoln would piss in their grave if they saw what these monkeys were doing to the children.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|