In my view, the dress code is a farce. The phrase "Is our children learning?" comes to mind. Every person who agrees with enforcing a dress code does so in connection with the idea, "Will it affect the ability of children to learn by distracting them?" This is a false argument, as it denies the ability of students to think for themselves and to pay attention to the teacher, while ignoring distractions.

When I was in school, there were kids who didn't want to be there, so they wouldn't learn even in a structured environment. There were other kids who were perfect students, and they could pay attention in a hurricane. Then there were the majority of the students who were average and paid attention most of the time, but not always.

A t-shirt like the one the kid wore is certainly distracting, but does it really stop anybody from learning? I saw girls wearing halter tops, and I spent half the class transfixed on teenage boobs, because I was in the middle of my puberty shock. But did that stop me from learning? No. I'm a multi-tasker. I can stare at boobs AND learn at the same time. And if you can't, well, maybe you shouldn't be in school at all.

Maybe I see things differently, I don't know. I just don't see how this kid's shirt (although stupid) was distracting.

>> ^blankfist:

This was a public school. Not private. If freedom of speech isn't protected in the public, where is it protected?

Public schools are not "public" property, they are secure sites with their own system of rules and regulations for behavior. If the administration and duly elected school board decided that they should require a dress code and a code of conduct, and little Daxx was in violation of them due to the events surrounding his choice of garment, then his suspension is fitting.

Now if he wishes to amend his shirt to something less inflammatory but with the same anti-Obama sentiment, and they were to suspend him, then at that point I'd be happy to denounce the schools actions. But he won't, he'll wear the same shirt on Nov. 4th and get suspended again. At which point I'll laugh at the stupid kids and his equally dumb pappy.

>> ^blankfist:This was a public school. Not private. If freedom of speech isn't protected in the public, where is it protected?


"The public" and a public schools internal dress-code are 100% different, I don't understand what the confusion is about.

This is why so many public schools have gone the direction of uniforms (which I am in favor of).

You can argue this all the way to the supreme court, and possibly win. But these court-cases and lawsuits are why the rest of the world laughs at us. Putting this on your kid and sending him off to school is begging for a conflict, and a conflict in the last place it is needed: junior high school...uggh

>> ^volumptuous:
I don't understand why so many here are having a problem with this.
Public schools have dress codes, period. Dress codes aren't only to dissuade kids from wearing hotpants and peek-a-boo bras, but to prevent "disruption" or "distraction" from the academic environment.
This shirt, obviously falls under the distraction rule. In fact, many schools also don't allow the public display of religious symbols. My old highschool forbid them, outright. You couldn't wear a jesus cross as a necklace unless it was inside your shirt.
The school enforced the dress code. The end.


This was a public school. Not private. If freedom of speech isn't protected in the public, where is it protected?

I don't understand why so many here are having a problem with this.

Public schools have dress codes, period. Dress codes aren't only to dissuade kids from wearing hotpants and peek-a-boo bras, but to prevent "disruption" or "distraction" from the academic environment.

This shirt, obviously falls under the distraction rule. In fact, many schools also don't allow the public display of religious symbols. My old highschool forbid them, outright. You couldn't wear a jesus cross as a necklace unless it was inside your shirt.

The school enforced the dress code. The end.

>> ^NordlichReiter:Its free speech, if you don't like it don't look at it.


Free speech isn't exactly a "right" in public schools. There are dress codes for specific reasons, the biggest one is to not make useless disruptions.

Nothing to do with "freedom of speech". Especially since this is apparently his fathers doing, not the kid.

Priceless. I loved the geezer chasing him with a 2-iron. By the way, a 2-iron is every bit as effective as a Tazer.

I bet his charges included, violation of golf course dress code, not obeying cart-path only, not raking the bunkers after driving thru them, and not repairing divots. If the guy had any sense at all, he would have declared an unplayable lie, took his 1 stroke penalty and called it a day.

The ninth circuit is NOT an example of the process at work for anything more than agenda, bias, power and influence.....follow the $$$, hunny-Look at their track record-At face value, a lot of what they, lawyers for the ACLU, hell, The United Nations(oxymoronic) do, looks great. One has to look at the inception, evolution, and effects of what they actually accomplish, to see that the sandwich, with fresh, whole grain bread and veggies hangin' out to make you approach it, eyes-agape and mouth-watering....contains a shitburger served cold under all the dressing...
Code Pink, Moveon.org, mediamatters.org perhaps in their ranks, some well-meaning and no doubt thoughtful souls in their ranks, but agian, these folks tend not to understand the true mechanisms of what shaped their agendas, their virulent distaste for universal truths and ideals...nor could most of them work a shovel, change a tire, grow their own food or wipe their own asses without a choice between plys, scents, embossing and colors.

But hey man, Howard the Duck and Lord Whorfin, FTW, we all helped to make this world what it has become, a big chessboard on which a few influential, toxic, and un-human people play-

Now to the homosexuals-"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."-Crowley

Upvote for the white hat. I thought I was the only one that noticed that annoying part of the frat boy dress code - like a juicy whitehead sitting atop a dumb, ignorant, drunk, belligerent pimple. Makes me wanna pop it Gallagher-style.

The only thing that's missing is him yelling "woooo!" between every sentence or so.

I quit wearing them too. I have one pair with 2 inches, but I HATE them. Back in my school days the dress code was well...dresses, so I wore 3 inches every day. Then once I went to secular University.. I happily took a grunge vacation.. (very early 90s)
So when I took a job where I had to dress professionally, it was murder wearing heels again. I opted for sensible shoes from then on out.

I'll only wear heels if it's dressy and it's going to be less than 3 hours of wearing them.

Yeah you can see her underwear when she doesn't cross her legs. I see worse at every high school class and college class I've been in. This is not right simply because it's not excessive or unreasonable dress. And there is no stated dress code. If there was a dress code and she didn't abide by it, then you can complain. If there is no dress code but what she's wearing is revealing way too much for any reasonable person to judge, then you have a defense. By that outfit, I see nothing wrong. We need the Flyers Bill of Rights to include Dress Code posting now.

Bigotry is an awful natural phenomenon that some would rather sweep under the rug. But we would do well to examine its roots in an effort to understand and prevent it.

This is a documentary of how some people in a particular area think. It should not be construed as an endorsement of those views. One should lament the fact that so many people have been miseducated to the extent that they would treat all Jews as enemies. I don't think it deserves a downvote, because it raises consciousness about hatred and its relationship to religion. In this video you see people justifying hatred of Jews with their faith. Faith, being the acceptance of ideas without evidence, makes one more likely to believe in potentially destructive falsehoods. Peaceful democratic ethics are incompatible with an accurate interpretation of the Old Testament at the root of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. For example there is a passage that says anyone who tries with words to convince you to believe in another God should be stoned to death.

I upvote this for raising awareness of unfortunate bigotry and its roots. I expect ghostcake does not intend any kind of anti-semitism because his other post has exposed authoritarian theocratic government in Iran:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Iranian-Police-Enforces-Islamic-Dress-Code-on-Women
These two posts fit in a common theme: negative consequences of faith.

Uniform: The noun meaning "distinctive clothes worn by one group" is first attested 1748, from Fr. uniforme.


dress code
?noun a set of rules specifying the garb or type of clothing to be worn by a group or by people under specific circumstances: a military dress code; The restaurant's dress code requires men to wear jackets and ties at dinner.

[Source: www.dictionary.com]

--

I think my whole point here is, who are YOU to decide what's moral or immoral for an entire country of people? or the entire world for that matter?
everyone wants individual sovereignty, and yet here you are trying to govern what another nation does with its own people.

just because American's "hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean the rest of the world feels the same. and regardless of my opinion on whether the world should be a Utopian society or not, this is simply not an idea based in reality. sorry.

Yes I know about laws; morality by consensus? Fuck that. Law exists to punish and deter criminal acts, it doesn't define them. Morality is revealed through logic, on the foundation of self-ownership, a right that you don't even acknowledge. How terrifying that such a simple and evident concept is so contentious in today's insane societies.
You seem to think it's literally immoral to smoke weed in most countries, but OK if you're in the Netherlands. Wicked to walk down the street naked in the US, fine in Sweden. What madness; breaking the law is not an inherently criminal act. Human beings know both these activities are acceptable wherever you are, regardless of the law.

"oh, you must not be familiar with this thing called the "military" then... it's composed of 4 major branches, all of which STRICTLY enforce a state mandated dress-code."

No-one's talking about uniforms but you, pull yourself together.

Right and wrong is not a matter of which country you live in...
umm, yes it is... you know about "laws" right? those things that each country gets to make up on their own? the "rules of right and wrong"? perhaps you're not familiar with them...
Try taking marijuana from Amsterdam to any other country... it's against their rules, or "laws" if you will...
Or, even better, it's okay to wiretap American phone lines due to the fact that the current "poisonous regime" has said so... couldn't do that with the last one...


Yes, enforcing a dress-code is savagery, all the more so when it's done by the state.
oh, you must not be familiar with this thing called the "military" then... it's composed of 4 major branches, all of which STRICTLY enforce a state mandated dress-code. Yeah, pretty absurd. *gasp*

basic right to individual sovereignty, and is therefore a crime against humanity
okay, so you're trying to say there should be no rules for anything pushed on anyone? well then the whole world is being oppressed.

The perpetrators and those who sympathise with them are disqualified from the human race and should be burned alive with the rest of the filth.
Great attitude. This will definitely help with your future life endeavors. It's attitudes like this that are the reason we're at "war" to begin with... In your eyes, the perps are those in the middle east. in THEIR eyes, WE are the perps... i hope you have your personalized pile of sticks ready.



all this over a woman in the street, making shrouded threats to other women, who are not complying with the social norms of the country they live in. if you cannot or will not obey the common law of the country you are inhabiting, move... it happens daily. (i guess with the exception of Cuba)