B.S. Story in Ohio

[IrishLax]

Irishlax, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

(I can't believe I'm explaining this)

Having to sit in the back of the bus or eat at a certain lunch counter was because of the color of your skin, something that people have no choice over.

This example is wearing a shirt that's against dress code. I'm sure their reasoning is that if you can wear any ol' teams gear you would have the same problems that made them switch to a dress code to begin with. The thing is if the locality votes in a dress code, thems the rules.

That being said, it was a terrible decision by a small minded administrator.

Yes... I do have a leg to stand on. The civil rights movement is an extreme, but it calls on the exact same legal tenants as this situation. I can't believe I'm explaining this, but here goes:

The bill of rights, among many other laws, enumerate what civil rights American citizens are entitled to. There are exceptions (e.g. involving safety... which is why the right to bear arms does not afford someone the right to bring a gun to school or yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater) but what we are talking about here are basic first amendment rights.

Usually you can write dress code or uniform laws such that they are legally fine. For instance, if you require a uniform in public schools, typically you have to provide uniform subsidies for kids who cannot reasonably afford them and justify why they make the school a better learning environment or something... it's usually not hard.

What you cannot do is exempt one group from adhering to a rule or promote one group's interest over another. This is really common sense. Usually, the challenge comes up with Jews and Muslims with head coverings when schools have no hat rules. And every single time they win (duh). In this case, while religious affiliation and team affiliation are certainly different, you still simply cannot legally prohibit one person from supporting their college (and threaten them with suspension!) while at the same promoting other schools.

If this went before a judge, at least in my area, they would simply say "You should also allow students to wear the equivalent if they do not support Ohio State or Michigan. Next case." That's the standard operating procedure as far as I'm aware, but I'm also not a lawyer and I'm working off personal experience and what I've learned in school.

Either way, the bottom line is if the a stupid administrator never got his panties in a bunch we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's really quite a silly and trivial matter.

 

[JughedJones]

"The civil rights movement is an extreme, but it calls on the exact same legal tenants as this situation. "

You're wrong.

"Either way, the bottom line is if the a stupid administrator never got his panties in a bunch we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's really quite a silly and trivial matter."

You're right.

 

[dshans]

We often complain about today's kids and their apparent lack of respect for authority, but yet we often stand idly by, or even encourage, lessons like the one that this father is passing down to his daughter.

There's an old saw: "Question Authority." Always good advice. Answers to your questions might make sense and be reasonable, but not always. Defy authority when that authority is capricious, deadly or just plain silly.

Examples:

My son was told by his high school band director to cut his hair when he chose to let it grow to shoulder length since it "didn't look right" when he wore his uniform hat. There was no written rule in regard to hair length and his dicta wasn't being applied to boys and girls equally.

Do I really need to dredge up Nazi Germany?

In high school I was "sentenced" to a week of detention because the shoes I was wearing (my mother bought them for me, don't give me ****) were black and brown saddle oxfords while the dress code rules called for black OR brown shoes. I wore them every school day for three months before I was "busted."

I'll leave it at this – "authority" requires scrutiny in both how it is derived and how it is practiced. People choose battles as they see fit. There are far too many historical instances in which authority was not questioned or resisted nearly enough. Cede an inch and grant a mile.

 

[IrishLax]

"The civil rights movement is an extreme, but it calls on the exact same legal tenants as this situation. "

You're wrong.

"Either way, the bottom line is if the a stupid administrator never got his panties in a bunch we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's really quite a silly and trivial matter."

You're right.

How? How am I wrong? Which laws do you think each is based on? I'm very open minded right now to being wrong, but you have to show me how I'm wrong. Please give me the specific legal tenants or precedent you think each is based on and explain why they are distinct.

The civil rights movement was based largely around First Amendment rights. One of these rights is "freedom of speech" which, as everyone knows, has been refined to include many forms of expression - including what your shirt says.

Anyways... this is my last post on the matter... I don't anyone here wants to waste time on a legal debate. The important thing is **** Ohio State, **** Michigan, and go Irish.

 

[IrishLax]

There's an old saw: "Question Authority." Always good advice. Answers to your questions might make sense and be reasonable, but not always. Defy authority when that authority is capricious, deadly or just plain silly.

Examples:

My son was told by his high school band director to cut his hair when he chose to let it grow to shoulder length since it "didn't look right" when he wore his uniform hat. There was no written rule in regard to hair length and his dicta wasn't being applied to boys and girls equally.

Do I really need to dredge up Nazi Germany?

In high school I was "sentenced" to a week of detention because the shoes I was wearing (my mother bought them for me, don't give me ****) were black and brown saddle oxfords while the dress code rules called for black OR brown shoes. I wore them every school day for three months before I was "busted."

I'll leave it at this – "authority" requires scrutiny in both how it is derived and how it is practiced. People choose battles as they see fit. There are far too many historical instances in which authority was not questioned or resisted nearly enough. Cede an inch and grant a mile.

Quoted for truth. +1.

 

[kmoose]

I'll leave it at this – "authority" requires scrutiny in both how it is derived and how it is practiced. People choose battles as they see fit. There are far too many historical instances in which authority was not questioned or resisted nearly enough. Cede an inch and grant a mile.

There's a big difference between respecting authority, and questioning authority.

Just because you have rights, that doesn't mean that it is always wise to exercise those rights.

 

[dshans]

There's a big difference between respecting authority, and questioning authority.

Just because you have rights, that doesn't mean that it is always wise to exercise those rights.

This has to be the biggest pile of steaming mammal scat yet in this "discussion." Recognize and "respect" authority are two different things. Bear in mind that respect, beyond a basic level, entails legitimacy. I purposely chose "insignificant" examples (save Hitler) to illustrate a larger issue.

What is the worth of a right if one does not assert and exercise it? As a minor this young lady has little legal standing. It is the right – and duty – of her father to stand up for her rights as a person.

In my lifetime I've questioned, respected and defied authority as I saw fit. From arbitrary decisions made by my parents (they had "authority" I had no choice but to "respect"), teachers, friends, society, culture and government. I spoke up.

Was the "authority" that allowed slavery, refused the rights of women and, to this day, stone women for exposing their faces to view or touching a male to which they are not married worthy of respect? Are the school boards who ban books and are adamant to erase Darwin in favor of Intelligent Design "respected" to the point of sacrificing public school students.

Here's the deal: allow citizens to speak about, act upon and exercise their rights, however trivial in your estimation, and I'll gladly grant you your right to not listen or care.

Isn't this a football forum?

 

[kmoose]

This has to be the biggest pile of steaming mammal scat yet in this "discussion." Recognize and "respect" authority are two different things. Bear in mind that respect, beyond a basic level, entails legitimacy. I purposely chose "insignificant" examples (save Hitler) to illustrate a larger issue.

What is the worth of a right if one does not assert and exercise it? As a minor this young lady has little legal standing. It is the right – and duty – of her father to stand up for her rights as a person.

In my lifetime I've questioned, respected and defied authority as I saw fit. From arbitrary decisions made by my parents (they had "authority" I had no choice but to "respect"), teachers, friends, society, culture and government. I spoke up.

Was the "authority" that allowed slavery, refused the rights of women and, to this day, stone women for exposing their faces to view or touching a male to which they are not married worthy of respect? Are the school boards who ban books and are adamant to erase Darwin in favor of Intelligent Design "respected" to the point of sacrificing public school students.

Here's the deal: allow citizens to speak about, act upon and exercise their rights, however trivial in your estimation, and I'll gladly grant you your right to not listen or care.

Isn't this a football forum?

I never said that anyone should never exercise their rights. I'm merely saying that there is a vocal minority of malcontents in this country that will exercise their "rights", just to stick it to the man. And many of those people are my age, spouting Vietnam-era slogans that have absolutely no meaning in this day and age. They merely spout them because their parents did, and passed them on to them. Everyone wants "authority" to be judicious and wise in their rules which curtail our rights. But not many people hold themselves to that same standard, when it comes to exercising their rights. Exercising our rights wisely is the best way to hang on to them.

Yes, this is a football forum. But there is ample precedence for philosophical discussion outside of football. And I always am interested in how other people's views of the world around us differ from mine.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Hey, the thing everyone is missing is this wasn't a "board of education" issue. This event was sponsored by the same administrators at the high school that wanted to force her to change her shirt. So the issue is not to file a "law suit", it is bearing pressure to force an administrative reprimand for some thoughtless administrator buried in a failing high school.

On a lighter note, it is cool to see the same division among us that permeates every fiber of our nation’s political being. Keep it up. We keep giving more, and getting less, and we have the puppet masters that have us salivating like Pavlov’s dog to thank. Or maybe, who we really have to thank is ourselves . . . One way to keep a crowd silent is to get them to argue among themselves:

Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent. Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[fairkidz]

seems to me she and her family have more spirit than most in her school

 

[Old Man Mike]

Enlightening if non-football discussion. I taught environmental science for the better part of my 30 year teaching career and that taught me a good bit about the Democracy. Some people want the Democracy to be a strong Majority-ocracy but this is suicidal. It is suicidal because the majority is stone-dead ignorant on most topics [especially in a complicated world] and reverts to apathetic Don't-Bother-Me's or protection of their wealth and comfort, regardless of wider issues.

This portion of the [failed] Democracy falls back on a concept of Law which is restrictively literal, rather than judge-able and "debatable". This is why most Law [no matter who is laying it down] must be open to public discussion and even protest. It is only this openness to protest [no matter how "irritating" it might be to someone of a different view] that will allow our Democracy to stand.

Everything has a minority opinion. We are ALL therefore in the minority of many things. What we should support "to the death" [and what if you'll notice, our board's democratic White Knight, dshans, is always on about] is openness to protest and active pursuit of that philosophy in a non-violent serious manner.

I heard a lot of really crazy ideas voiced, on both sides of environmental issues, during my teaching years, but respected them as long as they were "demonstrated civilly", i.e. non-violently. I'm happy to have been a protester myself, and am proud to probably have an FBI file [even though I'm a loyal non-violent pussycat of an American].

 

[IlovethehireofCoachKelly]

Girl punished for wearing Notre Dame on Spirit Day | 13abc.com

I am SO glad I have never lived and never will live in Toldeo. How on earth is a dress code like this acceptable for a public school?

I used to teach there. The place is a **** hole. The uneducation starts right at the top. hmmm wonder why that school district is horrible. Thats why everyone sends thier kids to St. John's, St. Francis, or even Central Catholic. I hope the people responsible get slapped.

 

[lookingdeadred]

Seriously?

Seriously?

Your equating this incident with the fight for civil rights?

To play devil's advocate here... Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. all violated rules through civil disobedience because they believed they were wrong. We're talking about civil rights/freedom of expression here in its most basic sense.

 

[lookingdeadred]

When you have top resort to extreme hyperbole to make your point

When you have top resort to extreme hyperbole to make your point

you must not have much of a point to begin with. Equating in anyway, this incident with the civil rights movement is just ridiculous.

How? How am I wrong? Which laws do you think each is based on? I'm very open minded right now to being wrong, but you have to show me how I'm wrong. Please give me the specific legal tenants or precedent you think each is based on and explain why they are distinct.

The civil rights movement was based largely around First Amendment rights. One of these rights is "freedom of speech" which, as everyone knows, has been refined to include many forms of expression - including what your shirt says.

Anyways... this is my last post on the matter... I don't anyone here wants to waste time on a legal debate. The important thing is **** Ohio State, **** Michigan, and go Irish.

 

[IrishLax]

you must not have much of a point to begin with. Equating in anyway, this incident with the civil rights movement is just ridiculous.

Yet neither you nor anyone else has yet to show me any example of how they are not based on the same laws. Ironic.

 

[lookingdeadred]

Yet you think you have made the argument for equivalency?

Yet you think you have made the argument for equivalency?

Really, you actually see an equivalency between this girl's desire to wear a ND shirt and the fight for civil rights? Wow, just wow.

Oh and for the record, no one has full freedom of expression, we all have limits, so yes, schools do have the authority to limit student expression.

Yet neither you nor anyone else has yet to show me any example of how they are not based on the same laws. Ironic.

 

[lookingdeadred]

Uniform is not okay, but a strict dress code is?

Uniform is not okay, but a strict dress code is?

How exactly do you, a free speech advocate, justify that? Student freedom of expression is curtailed in both scenarios, so why is one okay and not the other?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of challenging the law. I live in the DC and when my brother was in elementary school they tried to put in multiple uniform codes. Each one of them got absolutely destroyed in court and in the end they had to go wit ha "voluntary" uniform and "strict" dress code.

 

[IrishLax]

Really, you actually see an equivalency between this girl's desire to wear a ND shirt and the fight for civil rights? Wow, just wow.

Oh and for the record, no one has full freedom of expression, we all have limits, so yes, schools do have the authority to limit student expression.

If you read my posts, I mention that explicitly on page 1 or 2. I also mention, many times, that they are not equivalent. All I have ever said is that the legal argument here is based on most of the same laws that civil rights, religious freedoms, etc. are based on. Namely, the First Amendment.

You're clearly beyond reasoning with at all.

 

[mgriff]

I don't believe the comments in this thread! No wonder our civil liberties are being eroded from under our feet! A **** load of brave men and women died so this young lady could stand up and say this was unfair, and people think that it's just okay because there was a rule, which was unlawful, unequal, etc.

The bottom line is that Ohio State and Michigan fans were given a different set of rules to follow than the rest of the student body. Is that fair? Simply because there was an easy fix to the problem, take her shirt off, doesn't mean that they have to comply because ease of solution exists. Dissent is the sincerest form of patriotism.

I'm appalled by some of the comments in this thread and the lack of knowledge about the rights you've been given by past generations, which you are to preserve for future generations. Our country would be in a lot better shape if people were willing to challenge the government, and not accept every check on liberty because of some false sense of security.

 

[kmoose]

I don't believe the comments in this thread! No wonder our civil liberties are being eroded from under our feet! A **** load of brave men and women died so this young lady could stand up and say this was unfair, and people think that it's just okay because there was a rule, which was unlawful, unequal, etc.

The bottom line is that Ohio State and Michigan fans were given a different set of rules to follow than the rest of the student body. Is that fair? Simply because there was an easy fix to the problem, take her shirt off, doesn't mean that they have to comply because ease of solution exists. Dissent is the sincerest form of patriotism.

I'm appalled by some of the comments in this thread and the lack of knowledge about the rights you've been given by past generations, which you are to preserve for future generations. Our country would be in a lot better shape if people were willing to challenge the government, and not accept every check on liberty because of some false sense of security.

Slow down, Patton. We're not talking about losing the right to criticize the government, or the right to bear arms, here. My point was just that I would bet your life that the dad in this case is telling his friends, "NO ONE is going to do that to MY daughter!" If it was someone else's daughter, he probably wouldn't give a rat's ***. That makes it a shortsighted, egocentric, misguided path, in my opinion. You say that Ohio State and Michigan fans were given a different set of rules. One could easily make the argument that the school was just honoring what is a special event, in the state. By the way..........I have at least two friends, AW1 Jonathon Maggert, and SSGT Roy Hunter, who died for our freedoms and rights. And I personally spent over 10 years defending those same. I have a Kuwaiti Liberation Medal and an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. So I don't appreciate the inference that my views might somehow dishonor those who have fought and died in the defense of our country.

 

[mgriff]

Slow down, Patton. We're not talking about losing the right to criticize the government, or the right to bear arms, here. My point was just that I would bet your life that the dad in this case is telling his friends, "NO ONE is going to do that to MY daughter!" If it was someone else's daughter, he probably wouldn't give a rat's ***. That makes it a shortsighted, egocentric, misguided path, in my opinion. You say that Ohio State and Michigan fans were given a different set of rules. One could easily make the argument that the school was just honoring what is a special event, in the state. By the way..........I have at least two friends, AW1 Jonathon Maggert, and SSGT Roy Hunter, who died for our freedoms and rights. And I personally spent over 10 years defending those same. I have a Kuwaiti Liberation Medal and an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. So I don't appreciate the inference that my views might somehow dishonor those who have fought and died in the defense of our country.

It is a different set of rules, regardless. Equality is a focal point of our constitution, especially equal justice under the law. It does not negate the fact that Ohio State and Michigan fans were treated differently than the rest of the student body. You can argue whatever you want, but that is the bottom line. Preferential treatment for a certain demographic is not acceptable under any circumstance. What would the reaction have been if children with blue eyes were allowed to dress differently? Outrage. What about children who didn't grow up in that state and recently moved? You should have to wear the school uniform while other students, who have lived there all of their lives are allowed to wear more comfortable casual clothing, simply because of something as mundane as a sports team? The bottom line is that it's unfair, and the administration's handling of it was authoritarian.

Thank you for your service, and I think it's a little crass to compare body counts of our friends who have died in service to this nation. I defended them as well, and **** like this pisses me off, because I see them being eroded, while the majority of the populace thinks it's okay to let them go because of security or a multitude of other excuses. This is another example of many where people think that because it isn't really a "big deal" that they shouldn't put up a fight. Every single attempted infringement upon liberty should be met with the utmost resistance. That doesn't happen anymore, as most are content to let them go because it's easier.

 

[kmoose]

It is a different set of rules, regardless. Equality is a focal point of our constitution, especially equal justice under the law. It does not negate the fact that Ohio State and Michigan fans were treated differently than the rest of the student body.

Does it pi$$ you off, that schools have Christmas (or generic "Holiday") Assemblies, but not one for Rosh Hashana? Is it ok to have a St. Patrick's Day Parade, but not a Cesar Chavez Day Parade? The real bottom line is this........ people are NOT treated equally, in everyday life. Schools are no different. Do you see metal detectors in affluent suburban schools? I don't want to live in a society where everyone is exactly the same as everyone else.

 

[mgriff]

Does it pi$$ you off, that schools have Christmas (or generic "Holiday") Assemblies, but not one for Rosh Hashana? Is it ok to have a St. Patrick's Day Parade, but not a Cesar Chavez Day Parade? The real bottom line is this........ people are NOT treated equally, in everyday life. Schools are no different. Do you see metal detectors in affluent suburban schools? I don't want to live in a society where everyone is exactly the same as everyone else.

It's not that everyone is the same, it's that everyone is treated the same in the eyes of an impartial government, of which the education system is a part. They can certainly stage a Cesar Chavez Day parade if someone wants to, all they have to do is get the same permits the St. Patrick's Day parades get. It's a standard process for everyone who wants to have a parade. Simply because St. Patrick's Day is more popular than the parade you propose, does not mean it's treated differently. Students who are Jewish get time off for Hanakkuh, and don't show up for school on religious holidays, all without a penalty because their religion is treated the same as Christianity.

Any more poor examples you'd like me to straighten out for you?

There are plenty of examples of citizens not receiving the same treatment under the law, gay marriage for example, but your points are not those examples. The government should be, and is obligated to provide equal treatment and justice, but they don't always. That is why this school issue is such a big deal, because it is yet another example of the government not operating according to the parameters set by the people.

 

[DillonHall]

Any more poor examples you'd like me to straighten out for you?

Nice

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

my father is a school principal. school law (nationwide) says that a student can wear whatever they want to school (unless a dress code is in place) SO LONG AS what that student wears "does not disrupt the educational process" in the school.

Bottom line...it's very subjective and pretty much up to the school administrators

 

[mgriff]

my father is a school principal. school law (nationwide) says that a student can wear whatever they want to school (unless a dress code is in place) SO LONG AS what that student wears "does not disrupt the educational process" in the school.

Bottom line...it's very subjective and pretty much up to the school administrators

Absolutely correct that they get to implement the dress code in their district. However, if there is an option to deviate from said dress code on a certain day, every student has to be afforded the opportunity to participate, which was not the case in this instance--only Ohio State and Michigan fans were given that choice, while the rest of the student body did not receive an option.

 

[kmoose]

It's not that everyone is the same, it's that everyone is treated the same in the eyes of an impartial government, of which the education system is a part.

So anything that happens at Notre Dame can be attributed to "another example of the Catholic Church........... "? Schools are run by locally elected Boards and Superintendents. I would say that they are absolutely of and by the people. If the people feel that they are not "for the people", then the election process is probably a much better venue than the courts, for them to express their frustration.

 

[mgriff]

No, Notre Dame is a private institution which is not governed by the same laws as those owned by the public. That is an issue of private property rights.

Simply because you elect your school board does not mean they don't have to abide by the laws set in place by the people. They do, but just like our elected representatives in Washington D.C., they don't always. Not following the laws can result in action from the people, although like I stated before, too many people are uninformed on the issues and don't perform their civic duty adequately.

That is to mention nothing of how long it would take to wait for another election to express frustration. That's a reason why the courts exist, so you don't have to wait for an election to solve every problem.

 

[kmoose]

Dude, you are saying that this is not just about a shirt, it's about another example of the government not treating people fairly, because the school is a part of the government. ND is a part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not run the day to day operations of ND, but the Federal Government doesn't run the day to day operations of local schools, either.

 

[mgriff]

Dude, you are saying that this is not just about a shirt, it's about another example of the government not treating people fairly, because the school is a part of the government. ND is a part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not run the day to day operations of ND, but the Federal Government doesn't run the day to day operations of local schools, either.

You're really reaching for something here aren't you? The Catholic Church is a private institution, they don't have to answer to the people. That is in contrast to the federal government which exists because of the power delegated to it by the American public. You're comparing a private entity to a publicly appointed and policed, or lack thereof in some circumstances, government. They are not the same.

Do you not understand the difference between public and private? Look I can't give you a class on government along with private property rights, but I would suggest you do some research. That is completely serious and not a shot at you in any way.