![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearbased on this article about a muslim family suing a school system for not letting their daughter cover her head as required by their faith...
my thoughts is that its yet another example of the wrongness of the blanket absolutes, zero-tolerance and such insincere attempts to have all children treated equally.
if boys can't wear baseball caps at school, why should a muslim girl be allowed wear a head-scarf, or a jewish boy wear the cap (whatever its called)?
if they can't enforce a regulation uniformly (yes, i *meant* that word), the regulation has no bite when kids start complaining to parents and discriminiation lawsuits get filed.
in other words, when it comes to the "hats" issue, schools are in a no-win situation. allow some and they must allow all for face a lawsuit; deny all and they face a lawsuit.
better stupid clothing regulations be hanged. baseball caps and slogans on t-shirts are not a distraction: the *enforcement* of the regulation is the distraction. if they didn't concern themselves with that crap, the kids wouldn't be so intent on pushing teachers/administrators buttons and might actually instead pay attention in class.
my thoughts is that its yet another example of the wrongness of the blanket absolutes, zero-tolerance and such insincere attempts to have all children treated equally.
if boys can't wear baseball caps at school, why should a muslim girl be allowed wear a head-scarf, or a jewish boy wear the cap (whatever its called)?
if they can't enforce a regulation uniformly (yes, i *meant* that word), the regulation has no bite when kids start complaining to parents and discriminiation lawsuits get filed.
in other words, when it comes to the "hats" issue, schools are in a no-win situation. allow some and they must allow all for face a lawsuit; deny all and they face a lawsuit.
better stupid clothing regulations be hanged. baseball caps and slogans on t-shirts are not a distraction: the *enforcement* of the regulation is the distraction. if they didn't concern themselves with that crap, the kids wouldn't be so intent on pushing teachers/administrators buttons and might actually instead pay attention in class.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 08:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 08:26 am (UTC)*le sigh*
Love you, Joe! *smoochonnacheek*
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 08:43 am (UTC)preventing the wearing of a religious symbol or religiously symbolic clothing is in violation of the church/state separation -- denying such clothing declares a religion (or at least aspects of a religion) to be invalid.
However, the state doesn't recognize all religions -- I don't know how they determine what is an acceptable religion. This keeps people from starting a fake religion to avoid taxes, etc.
But again, these are not questionable religions we're talking about, but accepted ones, and the wearing of certain headpieces is a recognized part of those religions.
The wearing of baseball caps and other casual clothing that has offensive sayings or images can be distracting. Imagine wearing a pro-KKK shirt to school, or a shirt promoting violence or murder. Should the school try to prevent the wearing of such items? Certainly they will be distracting, or at least promote hatred. But how does one draw the line between a KKK shirt and a shirt promoting Jesus? Or simply a smiley face? Easier to ban them all than to draw the line. What about freedom of speech? That doesn't apply in schools, at least not completely. Freedom of speech is matched by the freedom to walk away from the speech. In schools, other students and the teacher are effectively captive, so freedom of speech doesn't completely apply. But again, where do you draw the line?
Hmmm...are toupees considered headgear for such a rule? Wigs? Is vanity more acceptable than religion?
As for keeping students focused instead of trying to push teachers' buttons, students will push buttons regardless, they'd just find different buttons.
I need to think about this more.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 08:53 am (UTC)This shirt (black shirt) was allegedly viewed as threatening/intimidating by another student. The young man was given the choice of wearing his shirt inside out for the rest of the day or going home. I think he went home.
As for the religious symbols, there have been cases where people try to discourage the Star of David but don't say a blamed thing about a crucifix or a cross. Of course other symbols either don't get noticed or get truly vilified..
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 08:59 am (UTC)that's all i'm asking for, is justice, punishments fitting the crime, and blanket zero-tolerance policies (no hats, no prescription drugs, no over-the-counter medicines) be abolished. teachers and administrators (generally, former teachers themselves) are reasonable, educated people. USE that education; you should by now be well aware that no culture that has espoused zero-tolerance policies has succeeded in enforcement, and most ended in a rather violent civil war of one form or another.
yeah its "easier" to ban them all then draw a line or even admit that the line isn't a straight line in any case. but life isn't supposed to be "easy". accept the challenge, set the precident, do the right thing. let justice be blind again.
and of course I know that kids will find other buttons to push; they always have. but there are ways to set up regulations so that kids won't have the parents on their side all the time the way these zero-tolerance things invite.
quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 10:06 am (UTC)"But again, these are not questionable religions we're talking about, but accepted ones"
but then that statement itself opens up a whole new issue - who decides what religions are questionable and what religions are accepted. Hypothetic situation set up here - If I attend a worship session with a group of like minded individuals, no one is harmed in our worshipping, pay my taxes and am in general a law abidding citizen then why should the school be able to tell my children that our religion or spiritual beliefs are less important then someone else's. Zero toleance may not work well all of the time, but unfortunately, it does work a large percentage of the time and that is about as good as it gets most of the time.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 10:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 11:15 am (UTC)Contrast this with the article linked to the bottom of *that* article -- the one about the lady who would not remove her veil for her drivers license photo. In that case, the judge ruled that the lady *must* remove her hijab for the photo, but the woman and her husband are appealing on the grounds of "religious discrimination". In that particular case, it's a flawed stand they are taking -- the same page has a sidebar showing the policies of drivers license photos for women in muslim countries -- and in each instance, the woman MUST remove her veil for the photo.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 11:36 am (UTC)yes, its a "no hats or hoods" inside the building, which makes no allowances for religious requirements. its a double-edged sword. make allowances for specific religions and (like the pledge) get sued for discrimination against non-practitioners, or sued by christians for favoritism. don't make allowances for specific religions and you get sued by them for direct discrimination and prejudice.
better still to just get rid of the absolutist no-hats policy altogether. colleges do that and nobody really complains...
The Best Excerpt:
Date: 2004-04-22 11:48 am (UTC)Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 01:22 pm (UTC)Here's a thought: What's to keep someone from claiming to be part of a religion where really excessive speeding is required? There are already religious practices that involve risk of health and life to show devotion, so why not driving at 140 miles per hour through congested highways. Could they appeal a speeding ticket based on religious freedom? How would that be different from breaking a hat-wearing law for religious purposes?
Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 01:36 pm (UTC)there are laws to restrict the ability of someone to risk bodily harm to others. The "no hat" policy like most zero-tolerance policies in schools, exists to make it easier on teachers and administrators. They *could* have defined a "good hat, bad hat" policy and applied it on a per-case basis, but they didn't. they said "no hats, period" and that's just plain wrong.
i know a bad hat in a classroom environment, like say my cat in the hat hat, or my 10/6 mad hatter hat. but a freakin' NYYankees ball cap only is a distraction (or can lead to a confrontation) in a virginia classroom if they just (yet again) beat baltimore out of the playoffs.
a per-case basis, a little common sense, and a little courtesy.
picture this: "could you kindly please remove your hat; its a bit distracting", "oh, yeah, sure" (rest of class laughs a bit, talks about it at lunchtime, and forgets the whole thing in a day...)
i had teachers that basically told the students that the no-gum-chewing regs were rediculous, and punished the current generations (who have ALWAYS lived under such regs) that they only came into existence because of a few troublemakers and why should you be punished because of kids who've been out of school for 30 years plus...as long as 1) we didn't make noise, and 2) they didn't find wrappers on the floor and gum under the desks, we could chew all we wanted. as it should be. ditto having food/drinks in the class which is a zero-T thing in some systems.
Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 01:57 pm (UTC)With that in mind...
My speeding analogy was meant to suggest that religious expression may not be sufficient grounds for being exempted from a law. However, it could be argued that the law is bad if it violates religious freedom, and so the law could be ruled unconstitutional and thrown out altogether, then replaced with a better law (or not replaced at all).
Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 03:34 pm (UTC)my take - excessive speeding is breaking the law -a law that applies to ALL people regardless of religion.
In my example I specifically said law abiding cause that is a black and white that the school or our government can use to decide what is right/acceptable and what is not. Not saying I necessarily agree with all the laws, but they are definites that apply to eveyone regardless, where as it is not up to one person or instituion (except the police) to decide who gets to be right and who gets to be wrong. So if the hat wearing were a law that applied to everyone than it would not be any different. But unfortunataly, dress codes and the zero tolerance issues are not the same from school to school because of the individual interpretation that is different. Problems lie in where one school official may consider zero tolerance and call a student on something, another school offical may just look the other way and not see it.
Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 03:42 pm (UTC)hey - you're pretty good at this logical arguement/discussion thing - definitely made me think about why I answered the way I did - I know I believe it, which is why I wrote it, but it never hurts to have someone question why :-)
Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 03:45 pm (UTC)Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-22 03:56 pm (UTC)enforcement for violating school is immediate, guilty until proven innocent. there is no right of appeal without your parents, and no legal recourse for you to defend that it wasn't what was suspected. I once got "licks" (corporal punishment, still legal in florida in those days) for "fighting" when all i did was one shove to try to push the kid (who was practically standing on me) away for 1 second in order to run behind something. the teacher saw my shove, called me "fighting", and i got punished, even though i made no other agressive move for the entire 15-20 seconds of the incident.
that has bothered me for over 2 decades now. I had no way of saying, don't punish me now, lets talk about this first. i got the licks that day, within 20 minutes of the fight.
the zero-tolerance stuff is the same way. the kid goes home, no explanations necessary. the parent has to deal with it later. even when its something so utterly rediculous as possession of Motrin IB for PMS cramps, something no kid wants to go to the school nurse to admit or confess; they want their privacy, they just want to deal with it as they would anywhere else on the planet. and they get expelled for that attitude, no recourse at all until the parents go get the lawyers.
if someone speeds and says their religion requires it, fine. they get the ticket anyways, and then the trial for them to try to explain it. maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but they get that chance. And while they're at it, they are free to continue to speed and get more tickets all they want. they haven't been proven guilty of the first incident, so the officer has no recourse to revoke the license on subsequent (alleged) infractions.
in school, however, the "trial" is "you did this, we're sending you home". you have no recourse to explain, technically, in the school environment. not to the teacher, not to the principle if he doesn't feel like listening. you have no direct form of appeal to the school board, either. your only recourse is the time and money wasted by consulting a lawyer and filing a suit.
there's got to be a better way...
Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-23 10:17 am (UTC)Re: quoting Javasaurus
Date: 2004-04-23 10:18 am (UTC)