A free speech and dress code controversy blossomed at Watauga High School on April 21 when students wore T-shirts apparently intending to counter a student action designed to support gays.

April 21 was a “Day of Silence,” a voluntary student-led movement in which students go through the day without speaking to mark their support for gays.

High school principal Gary Childers said the observation was not endorsed, sponsored or initiated by the school or its faculty. He said three students were observed wearing cards announcing their participation, while perhaps 15 to 25 may have been participating in all.

According to Childers, five other students wore T-shirts in response to the Day of Silence, bearing religious messages that were deemed “offensive” under the school system’s dress code.

The students were told the shirts bore messages that were interpreted as a violation of the dress code.

The dress code prohibits the wearing of any clothing or emblems that are “offensive to any race, religion, or gender.”

The students were offered the opportunity to change into T-shirts kept in the office for that reason, as outlined in the dress code. Three of the students refused and were suspended for the day, the penalty called for under the dress code if the behavior is not altered.

Three of the T-shirts deemed in violation bore the message, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

One made a reference to lisping, which is often used to stereotype gays, and another stated “Homosexuality is a sin” and other messages made references to Bible verses.

Childers said he made the determination that the shirts were in violation because of the part of the policy that banned “offensive” messages from clothing, not that they were targeted toward race, religion, or gender.

Childers said it was a “tough decision.” “It wasn’t anything anyone took lightly. The students were treated respectfully and nobody’s belief was ever challenged or questioned.”

One of the students, Mark Austin, spoke to the media about his experience and said he chose suspension instead of changing shirts.

“I wasn’t going to back down on this, and it’s completely driven by what I believe,” he said.

Austin’s shirt contained handwritten messages including “Homosexuality is a sin” and a reference to the King James Bible’s Leviticus 18:12. The shirt also contained the messages: “Hell is real,” “Solution: Jesus is the answer” and “Shout for joy,” with references to verses Revelation 21:8, Romans 10:9-10 and Psalm 132:9.

The 17-year-old junior has sought legal representation from the American Family Association (AFA) and plans to challenge the school and the dress code and believes his First Amendment rights were violated. Austin said his AFA attorney will be asking the school system to publicly apologize for the suspensions, remove the suspensions from their records, and be given full credit for the day of school that was missed.

His attorney will be asking the two other suspended students to join the action and plans to take the case to federal court if those conditions aren’t met.

Austin said homosexuals and heterosexuals have “exactly the same rights” but homosexuals “demand more rights” and that he was stating his Christian beliefs on his T-shirt. He also said Christians offer their messages to people in a nonconfrontational way.

“As Christians, the way we have been commanded to tell the truth is to make a stand very boldly, without compromise,” he said. “We present our message as truth and we try not to force it on other people. They can accept it or reject it.”

The Day of Silence was first observed in 1996 and according to www.dayofsilence.org, the day is a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in collaboration with the United States Student Association.

It’s described as “a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual) bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment — in effect, the silencing— experienced by LGBT students and their allies.”

Watauga High School was one of many high schools listed on the GLSEN Web site as participating in the Day of Silence, but the organization said that listing does not mean the event is endorsed by school administration. Anyone can register a school using an online form.

Childers said this wasn’t an issue of the school’s choosing sides. He said if students participating in the Day of Silence had worn messages that were deemed offensive under the dress code, then they would also have faced the same penalties and actions. He said any messages deemed derogatory toward Christians would have been handled in the same way.

Austin said, “The message that was communicated to me was, if you’re not for or against it, why am I being suspended? It’s offensive to Christians for that day (of silence) to even be happening.”

“We do get criticized for lack of consistency and enforcement of the policy,” Childers said, adding enforcement of the code could be difficult because of the variability of potential violations.

“We do our best under those circumstances to be fair,” he said. Most of the difficulty in enforcing the dress code comes with the sections dealing with dress length and the prohibition on clothing that bares midriffs. The dress code also addresses safety issues.

Childers said the most common violations for messages deemed offensive are shirts for the chain restaurant Hooters, as well as occasional shirts that contain what could be viewed as sexual innuendo.

Austin said he was treated with respect by the Watauga staff despite the ruling.

Childers said he had talked to Austin the next day and said he respected his rights and beliefs. “I respect this young man a lot, as I do all the students involved,” he said.

Childers said school was not disrupted by either action and there has been no lingering fallout from the incidents. The incident has received limited national attention after an article appeared last week at the conservative news Web site WorldNetDaily.

“Watauga High School has not taken a position for or against homosexuality or for or against Christianity,” Childers said. “My job here is to focus on teaching and learning.”

http://www.wataugademocrat.com/topic.php?tid=7&sid=3954
---------------
This is disgusting. Free speech is free speech, and that means for all, not just for select groups. These kids should have been allowed to express their opinions, just like anyone else, no matter what I or anyone else thinks of said opinions. I don't like their opinions, but as S.G. Tallentyre said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I am getting tired of these high school T shirt suspension stories.

don't read them

:rolleyes:

My first post. I hope I do ok, but I may seem to ask many questions.

I do believe in free speech. However, I also believe that means speaking. The waving of signs, burning of flags, and wearing of shirts are all actions. The view may be naive, but it is what I feel.

A local amusement park installed a sign several years ago. The sign stated that shirts of the "Big Johnson" or "CO-ED Naked" variety were not allowed. The park was a family place with younger children and if a person were wearing this type of clothing, their options were to turn it inside out or not enter the park. I personally think those shirts are very funny. BUT, I also repect the objections of others and therefore do not press the issue.

If this can happen in a business such as the park, is a school any different, even if it is a public entity. I think not. If the idea is to go to school to learn, that is what needs to occur, not forcing ones' ideas or beliefs upon others. Is it possible that if they are there to learn, perhaps they do not possess the knowledge, dare I say maturity, to recognise the depth of the what they do? Children are in school to be told what to do, to be instructed. I believe that all those involved on both sides should not have introduced such material in that particular forum. If the students wanted to engage in a religous battle over sexuality they should have done so on their own time in another location. I believe it detracts too much from the purpose of the education that is supposed to be learned, not the education they wish to teach.

I personally would not discuss my religion or sexuality in such a setting. While I respect the beliefs of others, I expect the same respect in return.

I believe that the administrators could have stopped this from escalating into what it has become (i.e. their job.......administrate). Both sides should have been warned to cease and desist or suffer the punishment.

Why is it that everyone must run to a lawyer at the slightest bit of contraversy? If it were that important to them to stay in school, they could simply change their shirts, not their beliefs. It is true that both sides should have been punished, not just one side. Had I been given a day off, I would celebrate it and been proud of myself for my convictions. If the conviction of your beliefs is that strong, have the same conviction to suffer or enjoy the fruits produced. To cry spilled milk afterward makes a sore loser.

I am stating what I feel as it flows from my mind, I am not standing on the fence if it seems that way. I think the whole thing is inappropriate for the setting and should not have happened. My personal opinions on the subject will be given only if you wish to know them, as I said, to force my own thoughts on others uninvited would be wrong, even more if you ask me to stop.

Thanks for your time reading this, got kind of long.

It's not really the point of Borg's post, but this part caught my eye:

those who support making anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual) bias unacceptable in schools

I'm 100% against any group that wants to make bias unacceptable. Acting on those biases is one thing, but being biased is absolutely everyone's right and the last thing we need is some sort of thought police. Now on to the real topic . . .

I don't see the "Adam and Steve" type shirts to be that horrible. Maybe if they were of the "Aids kills fags dead" variety (this is a reference to a shirt Sebastian Bach wore once, if you didn't know) you'd have something. Commentary doesn't bother me until it's advocating violence or something of that sort. Unfortunately now we have to listen to Pat Robertson use this as an example of how Christians are being oppressed by the gay lobby. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by 007
I believe that the administrators could have stopped this from escalating into what it has become (i.e. their job.......administrate). Both sides should have been warned to cease and desist or suffer the punishment.
One's main job at school may well be to learn, but that doesn't mean giving up all rights to that effect. Individuality, creativity, and free speech are all rights that people of all ages enjoy, and they should not be curtailed simply to avoid possible conflict. In fact, the gays on this side just wanted a day of silence.

And, I think over-administrating is also a distraction and tends to demoralize students, making them less apt to do well on tests, etc. Students don't learn well if they're miserable.

Somehow, I feel that students doing a "day of silence" is going to disrupt learning in school a bit. You know teachers are going to ask students questions and they have to respond.


Also you did a good job, 007, and hope to hear more from you.

frankly, I think that suspending a kid for wearing a t-shirt is ridiculous. freedom of speech is very important, nd jsut becasue students are under 18 doesn't mean that we lose our rights. I don't agree with what they were expressing, but those kids had a right to wear the t-shirts. also, dress codes are a complete waste of energy. kids feel totally oppressed everythuibng they do is regulated, and it distracts from learning far more than tank tops and wacky slogans.

Over-administration is a waste of time, yes, but in my high school experience, no matter how high the bar of tolerence was set there was always someone that felt the need to cross it. Usually they claimed to be doing something political, but they really just wanted some attention. My point being that you have to draw the line somewhere and no matter where you draw it someone will cross it and force your hand. Like my friend that decided to wear his Metallica "Metal Up Your Ass" shirt, featuring a toilet with a sword sticking out of it. :D And despite the "kids don't leave their first amendment rights at the schoolhouse door" quote, the Supreme Court is not opposed to reasonable restrictions put in place to get kids to learn. Time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech have always been accepted by the court.

As an aside, I think a reasonable question by any kid whose right to free speech is deemed disruptive to the educational process would be to question just how much the Pepsi ads all over the school contribute to the educational environment.

In this case they broke pre-defined rules. There is no civil liberties violation here in the schools actions.

Civil liberties do not mean ancharchy or the ability to do whatever you like.

Thanks for the welcome Darth

Perhaps I need to clarify my statements. I understand the original post and perhaps I was slightly off to the side in my post.

The base matter at hand is simply this. Students report to the administrators of the school. I am not suggesting that the school be run as a military dictatorship, but as Lionel stated "you have to draw a line". Granted there will always be those who push the envelope, should they cross the line into civil disobedience, then the punishment should be accepted. If the quiet students do not respond, they recieve the punishment for their disobedience. If you don't remove disruptive clothing, the punishment is yours.

At my place of work, I may not like something my employer tells me to do. I may ask why. But then, I do as I am told. I am his subordinate. At school the students are the subordinates. They may not like being students, and I may not like being an employee, yet we must all accept our positions in life. As our position changes, perhaps we will be the ones who get to draw the lines.

007 - welcome to the forums.

I agree with your analogy of the work situation.

I could walk around with a T-shirt that says "My Boss is a Cunt" - I have the right to exercise free speech - but I also must accept the consequences of that.

If on the other hand everybody else was allowed to wear such T-shirts, everybody else but me - then they would be stepping on my right to equality. This was the crux of the matter in the gay election thread & why this situation is different

Drew, a school is different than work. You have to go to school, but you don't have to go to work. Also, schools are government agencies while workplaces are not. Plus, please tell me how those shirts were disruptive.

Originally posted by DrewM

I could walk around with a T-shirt that says "My Boss is a Cunt"

Jeez, Drew...I hope your boss doesn't read this forum...:D

I don't have a boss so no worries

Borg - School / Work - it's the same - they both have rules.

lionel: there will always be people who break rules, because that's what some people like to do. from experience, realy restrictive rules, like dress codes, juse makes students resentful of the school. if they don't seem to serve any purpose (for instant, we can't wear hats and coats at my school for safety reasons) most kids resent having to follow them or choose not to. rules are important, but when they defeat their own prupose of helping kids learn, they are pointless. I'm going on the whole confuscian principle of people being good in general, as opposed to 007's legalists idea that we all need rules.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Drew, a school is different than work. You have to go to school, but you don't have to go to work.


Ah, but you don't HAVE to go to school, in this day and age home schooling is quite popular.

To tell you what is offensive, that is not easy, what may offend me may not offend you. While I do have my religous beliefs, I do not force anyone else to know them. If someone forces their beliefs on me, I find them disruptive/offensive. Who is my peer that he should try to dictate to me what is right? However, there is still the higher authority to contend with in the school setting. And that authority is charged with considering the whole school population. If disruption prevents the original purpose of school, that being education, the disruption is removed for the betterment of the whole.

Just to look at the objection that created the shirt fiasco in the first place: Sitting quietly. I have yet to ask someone to make more noise in school. True being ignored would be dissruptive, and then would be dealt with.


I wonder, would the discussion be different if the slogans on the shirts were racist? Would it only be correct to remove said shirts if they offended a certain percentage of the people? OR what if a foreign exchange student wore a shirt proclaiming americans to be murders. I believe the whole story would have quite a different spin.

Example: About two years ago a town near mine had a student who was proud of his Confederate Flag. He placed it in the window of his car, I believe. Due to the whole civil war/slavery/this-flag-represent- the-acceptance-of-slavery issue, the student was informed not to bring it onto school property again. The student pushed the envelope.....crossed the line.....and was suspended. He too cried to the lawyers. As I said previously, have the convictions to stay the course. Accept what has been earned.

I'm going to say this before it gets suggested. I do not equate a religous perception with acceptance or endoursment of slavery. It is merely a model for what may constitute disruption or offence to the society.

Thanks Drew, having a good time here.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
I'm going on the whole confuscian principle of people being good in general, as opposed to 007's legalists idea that we all need rules.

A philosophical question that Plato might put forth: Are people good in general and therefore do not require rules. Or is it more correct to say that people are good BECAUSE we have rules and they know the consequences of infraction?

I like to believe people are good, I give everyone a chance. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice and answer to the rules. I openly admit, most everyone is good. The percentage of people not in prison compared to the percentage in prison show this fact. But that fact that the prison is needed shows the rules are needed also.

I think we should remember, this is not a good vs. evil type of argument, the students simply broke a rule, take the day off, and live on.

The term 'legalist' has never been used on me before. Nor have I ever ventured to proclaim myself Conservative or Liberal. I never thought about it. It sounds like a start for another thread. "What am I, politically speaking?" I wonder is there is a mold I fit into? I have to admit, I am really liking this board.

007: first of all, becasue you're new, topics on this borad veer in all different directions. don't fight it, embrace it.

the whole idea with the prison thing is that the people in prison broke social contract. that doesn't necesarily make them good or bad, it means that they were either functioning under different personal beliefs than those represented by law, or they simply disregarded morals and ethics. different people have different perceptions of right and wrong, ehich is my answer to your question. good and bad are terms that vary infinitely between people. the question is really what motivates people to follow social contract, and I think that for things outside of personal morals, it porbably is consequences.
I was just using the legalist-confucian thing as an analogy, I'm sure you don't follow ancient Chinese political philosophy in real life. I'm glad you're liking the board.

A philosophical question that Plato might put forth: Are people good in general and therefore do not require rules. Or is it more correct to say that people are good BECAUSE we have rules and they know the consequences of infraction?
"The law does not generate justice. The law is nothing but a declaration and application of what is just." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Most rules are common sense. In school, most of them are broken because the idiotic rebellous teenage population that never uses their brains. Unfortunately that continues into adulthood for many of them, that's where we get some of our prisoners from. Then, some of them are mentally deficient. Then we have the pot heads who didn't do anything wrong because that law is not logical and just. That one I blame on the damn fundies from the 20s.

and I think that for things outside of personal morals, it porbably is consequences.
Doy, that's why it's there in the first place. Because, it makes for ease of living, you try living alone, in the wild, with absolutely no help. That's why people follow the social contract, because if you break it you have no more rights under it.

It seems that these kids sometimes do things just to start a controversy. They can believe in what they want to without messages on t-shirts. They should be more concerned about their education than the kind of shirt one wears. If everyone would just ignore the shirts, they'd probably stop wearing them.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with the t-shirts or why anyone would be offended by them.

007, there is a large difference between "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." and "Go to hell, queers!" or "All Americans are murderers".

I believe we can read into the first two statements a little bit. They say the same thing in a slightly less confrontational tone.

If the original argument is free speech, then no speech can be censored. If Adam and Steve are allowed, so must the others, under the free speech argument.

You statement proves my point. It sounds as if you would take away the shirts which are sure to offend a larger number of people or perhaps offend a group of which you are a part, Americans, for example.

At what point is the censorship endorsed? When statements are anti-patriotic or in support of gay and lesbian issue, but not if my shirt is against gays and lesbians? I think it must be all or none. In the case of a public school setting, none would be better.

there are actually schools where you can't where cothing with anything wwritten on it. no brands names, no band logos, nothing. my cousin went to a school wwhere there couldn't be patterns on any of there clothing. it was ridiculous. with a lot of administrators, once you give them power, they run with it and never stop.

007, there are limits to free speech. A common example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because it causes a disturbance. Similarly, an insulting T-shirt like the latter two will cause a disturbance. The former did not, until the administrators overreacted.

Yelling fire in the crowded theater does not cause a disturbance. It endangers all those present in the form of a stampede. Also endangered are those who may actually have a fire when the fire department is looking for a fire that doesn't exist at the theater. Putting someone in danger is a vast difference from offending or causing a disturbance.

How do you know the first shirt will not cause a disturbance? I don't like them. I may not do anything about them, but the next guy may not be as nice as I am.

You do prove my point. You would remove the other shirts, but not the first. How can you with clear conscience censor only those you don't like. Censorship must be used against all or none.

I'm not advocating censoring those who I don't like, in fact, I'm advocating the opposite. I think the views expressed in those shirts are stupid, but that doesn't mean I want to censor them. Just like I don't think the KKK or the Nazi party should be abolished. Again, there is a difference between expressing your views on a shirt and causing a disturbance. Would I advocate outlawing those last two shirts in public? No. But school is different than just out on the street; major distractions and disturbances detract students from learning. I don't think the first shirt does but I think the last two do. I suppose the school administrators should have the final say in where the line should be drawn, and then the superintendent the power to move that line.