Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on January 07, 2012, 07:19:05 PM
-
Yahoo news seems to have some interesting stories today. This one is about a Colorado school's yearbook editors rejecting a photo of a graduating senior because they thought it was too revealing.
The photo and story are here (http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/colorado-student-banned-yearbook-over-racy-photo-201606793--abc-news.html).
I think it's interesting that it was the panel of student editors who thought the photo was a bad fit for the yearbook, rather than some old, fuddy-duddy administrators. It's also interesting that the girl's parents are looking to sue (surprise) because the panel won't allow her to look like a hooker in her senior photo. I don't think I've ever met the parents of any girl I knew who would be so adamant about having a slutty-looking photo of their daughter in the high school yearbook.
But, then, I'm just an old fart.
-
I don't think I've ever met the parents of any girl I knew who would be so adamant about having a slutty-looking photo of their daughter in the high school yearbook
Today's parents proudly dress their daughters in hooker-worthy outfits from very young ages. It's completely ridiculous.
Also, another great example of parent nuttiness is to watch the show "Toddlers and Tiaras". To me, much of what goes on in that show is child abuse.
ETA: Good one from the comments section:
Why do I see a pole and clear heels in her future?
-
my 10 year old gave thumbs down on the pic
-
Today's parents proudly dress their daughters in hooker-worthy outfits from very young ages.
Also, another great example of parent nuttiness is to watch the show "Toddlers and Tiaras". To me, much of what goes on in that show is child abuse.
Wife likes that show, so I see it on occasion and agree. Some of the kids do seem to enjoy it but mostly its for mom benifit to compensate for her being old and....a couple pounds beefier that she used to be. For the kids that seem to enjoy it fine whatever, but the ones basically forced to do it make me want to smack the ever loving snot out of their parents.
I've made it quite clear that if we ever have a daughter there's no way in hell she's getting dressed up lie an asian child hooker and paraded on stage like an animal at auction.
-
Meh, the picture doesn't seem bad at all. Covers way more than a bikini. Oh noes, a stomach.
-
They probably figure she's just an undiscovered model and every photoshoot is her chance at a big break.
-
I wasn't even thinking pole. She looks like she's posing for her porn debut...
=|
And here I was thinking it was going to be some artsy fartsy photo. Yeah, I pretty sure that violates dress code and every school policy involving female deportment.
The sad thing is, if she HAS to make herself look like a slut, there are plenty of ways to do so within dress code and in a more age appropriate outfit. At least there where when I was that age.
That's not freedom of expression. That's shock value (and pathitic shock value at that) and compleatly out of spirit with yearbook.
-
my 10 year old gave thumbs down on the pic
So did my wife....
If this gal wanted to confirm her slut-hood, she could have done it more subtley....like having the football team post reviews on her "playbook".....
-
I sort of thought a close up with the same outfit that only showed the head and upper torso would likely not be so bad. But yeah, the picture is showing a lot of skin for a year book photo. That one is getting down the road to being on the wall at Hooters.
-
At least there where when I was that age.
Pictures, please. ;)
My guess is that this girl has, in Rodney Dangerfield's words, been voted "Most Likely To".
-
Kudos to the editors for thinking there was a better picture she could have submitted so she looked more like a lady vs....how did someone else on here put it? Ready for her "big debut" sans pole? They even gave her the option to use that pic in the senior ad instead. Sounds like they were willing to compromise. As a parent, there is no way I'd let my daughter dress like that for her senior pic. What are these parents thinking?
-
Any publicity is good publicity.... Hef, you gonna give her a call now?
-
I wasn't even thinking pole. She looks like she's posing for her porn debut...
Same idea, just a different pole.
-
So help me, on what grounds exactly are they suing?
-
>So help me, on what grounds exactly are they suing?<
Blocking her pursuit of happiness in the porn industry?
-
Maybe she wants to be a model and this was her way to get lots of attention?
-
So help me, on what grounds exactly are they suing?
Public schools act with the power of a government - they do not and should not have the power to limit student expression to the same degree as a private school.
-
Public schools act with the power of a government - they do not and should not have the power to limit student expression to the same degree as a private school.
This is true, but do not schools generally have guidelines as to what may or may not appear in yearbook photos?
Has this young lady conformed to these guidelines?
-
Public schools act with the power of a government - they do not and should not have the power to limit student expression to the same degree as a private school.
But it was the yearbook committee, made up of students, that said no.
-
But it was the yearbook committee, made up of students, that said no.
That's fine - they cannot have any more power than their school officials when it comes to an official school function, though.
Micro, they might have guidelines, but those wouldn't mean much if they violated rights you'd normally have against the Government - again for obvious reasons. Schools are some of the biggest offenders in thinking their policies don't have to follow the law. This is most in evidence on APS in discussions about school policies on firearms and the second amendment.
-
Maybe it's because "things were different when I was ....." but aren't yearbook pictures head-and-shoulders mug shots?
From the article it appears that she can buy space in the yearbook (senior ad) and the editors say they would be more than happy to run her picture there. Also from the article, it appears that the yearbook is "award-winning" - which probably means it has a history of winning some award. This year's editors apparently want to keep the tradition of winning that award alive and feel that her picture jeopardizes their chances. That may be just their opinion or it may have been planted in their little heads by their faculty advisor. But in either case it seems there are some objective criteria being used in the decision.
If I thought I could get away with it, I'd use that picture in the yearbook with the caption "Most likely to have already ...." And tell her that's how the picture was going to be used.
stay safe.
-
This is true, but do not schools generally have guidelines as to what may or may not appear in yearbook photos?
Has this young lady conformed to these guidelines?
Yeah, and nope.
You can pretty much expect that school dress code falls on any school related activity or publication. The only exception is school dances, where you can bend the rules a bit, but not out right break them. Like, a strapless formal dress is ok, strapless hooker worthy dresswith a hem at the ass, not so much.
That outfit does not conform to any school (or work, outside the afore mentioned career feilds) dress code that I've ever seen.
To be honest, i'm suprised they're willing to give her ad space.
-
To be honest, i'm suprised they're willing to give her ad space.
Me too....unless they take ads from the local escort services.....
-
The editors have control of what goes in the publication. That's the way it is in the real world, that's the way it should be in this school too, public or private. The editors spoke. And this would remain my opinion even if I didn't happen to agree with them, though I do.
-
Do I think this image is as horrible as the majority of APS seems to? No, I do not.
Do I support the existence of school uniforms and dress codes? No, I do not.
Do I even support the existence of public schools? No, I do not.
But I suspect very much that, from a standpoint of what the law is, the school is probably going to be in the clear, for reasons that MrsSmith explained already.
-
I don't think it's "horrible". I've seen much worse (or better, depending upon your point of view).
I think it's inappropriate for a high school yearbook, I think the editors have every right to say it can't be with the other seniors' graduation photos, and I think her parents are horrible.
-
At my school, legend has it a student in her final grade took her graduating exam in Physics wearing basicallly two narrow strips of cloth as a top and a bottom.
At first the exam overseer protested. Another student quipped:
"This is a physics exam. As she gets hot, it will expand."
The exam concluded in peace.
-
Of course I also have to ask:
This is the age of digital cameras embedded in every single form of electronics.
Couldn't they have just snapped a dozen photos of various degrees of raunchiness ranging from "Nun" to "OH GOD WTF IS THAT A PINEAPPLE" and emailed them to the staff? It would have taken about a minute.
-
The school has no problem with cheerleaders and dance teams wearing less and dancing VERY provocativly to stripper music but THAT was over the top? PLEASE! If wa are going to throw stones, let's level the field first people.
-
The school has no problem with cheerleaders and dance teams wearing less and dancing VERY provocativly to stripper music but THAT was over the top? PLEASE! If wa are going to throw stones, let's level the field first people.
what school has em wearing less than that? much less putting a pic in the year book?
-
The school has no problem with cheerleaders and dance teams wearing less and dancing VERY provocativly to stripper music but THAT was over the top? PLEASE! If wa are going to throw stones, let's level the field first people.
I think you are confusing college with high school.
or fictin for reality.
Nobody, at any high school I know of would get away with that.
The cheerleaders are much more conservative then that. Showing belly button is not the same as wearing what amounts to a bikini top.
And micro, consider that most high school seniors are still underage for at least most of the year. Dress codes are not evil and generally don't compare to what you make it out to be in either the public or private sector.
Freedom of expression and showing more skin then you'd find on some beach goers are two diffrent things.
-
Oh well, since they are 17 rather than 18 that makes it all okay then.
-
This about covers my thoughts on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RnqTTNO3nI
-
I remember back in high school the cheerleader uniforms showed more than what was allowed for normal cloths.
-
My wife went to a Catholic junior high. The dress code wouldn't allow mini-skirts, so she'd roll the skirt up at the waist to raise the hemline. That was a big deal, and got her in a a lot of trouble.
It's also a far cry from what the girl in question is wearing.
-
I knew this thread would be about a girl.
Also, I saw less revealing outfits in the Craigslist hooker section.
If she wants to look like the school bicycle, I don't care.
-
I wonder if she was voted as most likely to suckseed.
-
Jesus Christ, Micro...give it a rest...
-
My wife went to a Catholic junior high. The dress code wouldn't allow mini-skirts, so she'd roll the skirt up at the waist to raise the hemline. That was a big deal, and got her in a a lot of trouble.
It's also a far cry from what the girl in question is wearing.
Snort! My daughter in in Catholic school - it ain't changed! =D
-
Snort! My daughter in in Catholic school - it ain't changed!
Still have dress codes and brutal nuns?
My girlfriend/wife hated the nuns because of her experience. Once, when we were still teens, we were driving down a main drag in Milwaukee after having just stopped at a drive-in restaurant. Three nuns were walking on the sidewalk. My wife opened the car window and flung her vanilla malt at them.
She still doesn't like the church. ;)
-
Note that isn't a "top". It's a scarf, just a scarf.
If she moves her arms above the elbow at all it falls off.
I'm no prude but she technically isn't wearing "clothes" as conventionally defined.
-
The camera wasn't vertical... or the image was rotated.
I'm appalled.
End of comment.
-
She's on the Today show. Her presentation (and her mother's) is exactly what you'd expect.
She won't have to worry about putting an inappropriate photo on a Harvard student ID.
-
She's on the Today show. Her presentation (and her mother's) is exactly what you'd expect.
She won't have to worry about putting an inappropriate photo on a Harvard student ID.
I'm getting a mental image of Kelly and Peg Bundy from "Married With Children". Am I in the ballpark?
-
successful Troll is on the Today show
15 minutes of fame quota decreased by 5 minutes
-
She's on the Today show. Her presentation (and her mother's) is exactly what you'd expect.
All the elocutionary skills of a, like, valley girl?
-
All the elocutionary skills of a valley girl?
Like, totally.
-
A new take on the whole phenomenon of celebrity-by-sex-tape?
-
Still have dress codes and brutal nuns?
My girlfriend/wife hated the nuns because of her experience. Once, when we were still teens, we were driving down a main drag in Milwaukee after having just stopped at a drive-in restaurant. Three nuns were walking on the sidewalk. My wife opened the car window and flung her vanilla malt at them.
She still doesn't like the church. ;)
No nuns these days, and the lay teachers are pretty good.
The principal needs to be on a spine donor list, along with the Pastor.
'Course, my pushy and arrogant approach is easily executed with them! =D
-
So I was "forced" by my curiosity into looking at the Today interview.
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/yearbook-photo-too-racy-student-disputes-rejection/I_uA8LKFOAU0uXrhCcflTA
Both she and her mother have rather thin high-pitched feminine voices.
But "Valley Girl" speech?
No, I heard none of that. Not one "like" or "y'know" in there that I recall. Just normal speech, which if it were in text, would be unremarkable. The valley girl comments are just bandwagon-jumping --an interesting pack behavior.
I think the "provocativeness" was minimized somewhere along the line by having the pic rotated clockwise, which tends to minimize the "tush-sticking-out-of" which is typical of a lot of glamour shots. If you will notice, the stairway railing supports are not vertical in the submitted pic.
Dress code? During the Today video I spotted a pic where a boy's shirt was open to the waist which was possibly also against the dress code, but there wasn't a brouhaha about that. In that brief glimpse of the boy's photo, I believe a bellybutton was also shown.
Count me as supportive of Sydney Spies' original pic being included in the yearbook. No big deal.
Terry, 230RN
-
The boys photo you speak of was in the section that can be bought and almost anything goes. My opinion is if it can't be worn to school during normal school hours it has no business as your official class photo.
-
The boy's photo you speak of was in the section that can be bought and almost anything goes. My opinion is if it can't be worn to school during normal school hours it has no business as your official class photo.
Is that a fact? In any case, sorry, but I fail to see the difference in concept.
Much ado.
-
Sorry, I fail to see the difference in concept.
In the class photo section you are representing yourself as a student, in the ad section you are representing yourself as yourself.
-
In the class photo section you are representing yourself as a student, in the ad section you are representing yourself as yourself.
So yearbooks today accept ads for escort services?
-
OK...
We all know there is a diffrence between a boy shirtless and a girl shirtless. ;/
plus, yearbook photos often will use good (or not so good) candide shots taken by the family instead of a proffesional shot, since yearbook doesn't generally pay for these shots.
Was the boy in question at the beach? Where being shirtless (or semi shirtless) is acceptable?
Ten bucks, had she been in a bikini at a beach and not posed with her ass sticking out, the picture would have been acceptable.
(those rules I mentioned, this is how you can bend them without breaking them)
-
Yearbook...Paid ads where anything goes... Concepts.... Analogies...
OK, so you have a magazine, let's call it Workman, which is highly respected for its articles and interviews, but has lots of pictures of nude ladies in it.
Eeek! Someone objects to the nude ladies scattered throughout the mag.
Solution: Move the nude lady pictures to the front of the magazine so people can skip over them if they want to. That should make it OK.
Right?
Or even better, move them to the back of the magazine.
Or maybe just to the centerfold. Yay!
-
Or maybe just to the centerfold. Yay!
I think some guy named Hugh had that idea back in the 1950's.
-
so, the gay guy and the 4 paste up nerd girls of the yearbook committee are not pals with poor Sydney
but they will allow her to buy a 300 dollar add insert of her image
Hopefully someone in NYC has room for her in a modeling portfolio
as the Today Show booking pulled 8.5 of her 15 minutes of Fame allocation
her blatant facebook open gallery pulls another 2.5 minutes from her quota
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150377839253088.382956.62233143087&type=1
-
The camera wasn't vertical... or the image was rotated.
I'm appalled.
End of comment.
lets pull that window frame square to the view:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgooglepixel.com%2Fpictars%2Frotatedsydney.jpg&hash=6ea8b6cbcdea38139184ec74af0504f3223c2b10)
-
Well one thing is clear. That school has gotten her more exposure than she could have ever gotten from a yearbook.
-
Well one thing is clear. That school has gotten her more exposure than she could have ever gotten from a yearbook.
Doubt it. Bet the rest of that shoot had considerably more exposure...
-
Doubt it. Bet the rest of that shoot had considerably more exposure...
Don't all girls dress like this when sitting for their SATs!? =D
-
Note that isn't a "top". It's a scarf, just a scarf.
If she moves her arms above the elbow at all it falls off.
I'm no prude but she technically isn't wearing "clothes" as conventionally defined.
Good thing it's a picture.
-
Clearly more photos are needed to resolve the controversy.
-
Clearly more photos are needed to resolve the controversy.
You better hope she was past her 18th birthday when those photo's where taken...
:police:
-
Clearly more photos are needed to resolve the controversy.
On that, we can all agree.
-
"It's artistic. It's STUNNING!" (Mom)
"It's trashy." (Hawkmoon)
Now that I've watched the interiew (as much of it as I could stomach) -- I'll stick to the "valley girl" characterization. The bimbo appears to have the IQ of a rock in winter.
-
Doubt it. Bet the rest of that shoot had considerably more exposure...
Considering that there's no top to that "top" you are probably correct.
-
Well one thing is clear. That school has gotten her more exposure than she could have ever gotten from a yearbook.
That's what happens when you call the Feds make a play for attention.
The school doesn't appear to be doing anything but sticking by the usual standards of decency you would expect of any organization that deals with the under-aged. People who insist on being at the center of a scandal get the exposure they seek, but why blame the system for that? Blame the attention-whore.
And you can take my word for it. I am the forum's leading expert on blame. =)
-
Okay, I just finished watching as much of the interview as I could. I don't think I could stand to hear her mother or the daughter say "artistic" one more time.
If she's looking to become a model, she has some decent photographs for a comp. But that's where they belong.
I couldn't help but notice, though, that the editorial committee was four girls and one guy who looked any one of the four girls could beat him up. I wonder what all that had to do with the decision. ;)
-
Okay, I just finished watching as much of the interview as I could. I don't think I could stand to hear her mother or the daughter say "artistic" one more time.
Obviously, the Founders intended the 1A to be used an escape clause for anyone who wants to break the rules. Anything goes, as long as you can claim it is "free expression" or art. Why do we need CCWs, anyway? Just tell the police that your hidden handgun is a first-amendment-protected expression of the violence hidden beneath the well-dressed exterior of bourgeois existence. Yeah, that ought to work.
-
I think the key here is that this is effectively a government publication - I don't think the government has much business dictating fashion trends. And being government products, schools should be exemplars of the limits on government power that we enjoy.
Many school policies purport to prohibit all kinds of speech, including t shirts with guns, NRA type advocacy, etc in addition to the immodesty malarkey. The fact that these policies are common doesn't make them any less statist - if everyone's money is paying for the school, it ought to have policies on speech and expression that are content neutral.
The first amendment has been curtailed for students, which would make this a dicey proposition in court for either party.
-
The entire purpose of a standardized government school system is to enforce conformity and "discipline", De Selby.
The only solution is revolution.
I.E. abolish government schooling.
Fistful will be free to stop my future daughter from being published in his private school yearbook, and I will be free to point out that she's clearly sent them to him by mistake since she's not attending Fistful High.
-
I think the key here is that this is effectively a government publication - I don't think the government has much business dictating fashion trends. And being government products, schools should be exemplars of the limits on government power that we enjoy.
Many school policies purport to prohibit all kinds of speech, including t shirts with guns, NRA type advocacy, etc in addition to the immodesty malarkey. The fact that these policies are common doesn't make them any less statist - if everyone's money is paying for the school, it ought to have policies on speech and expression that are content neutral.
This perfectly illustrates my earlier point. The fact that a mode of dress can be called speech or expression is seen as an excuse to ignore rules that are put in place specifically to prohibit that so-called expression. It is precisely because the human body is not content-neutral, that it is to be covered. Yet the reason for the rule is now paraded before us as the reason why the rule must be abridged.
If such thinking as we see above is carried through consistently, one wonders how public schools are to keep students from wearing transparent garments, or any clothing at all. Once we get rid of that immodesty malarkey, that is.
"Immodesty malarkey." There's a good turn of phrase to consider. The reasonable is "malarkey." The barbaric is somehow sensible in this absurd and idiotic new world.
The first amendment has been curtailed for students, which would make this a dicey proposition in court for either party.
The first amendment has been curtailed, as you put it, for military members and other government employees as well. Are you in favor of abolishing those rules?
-
Government - and other - employees are there voluntarily. Students are not.
-
If such thinking as we see above is carried through consistently, one wonders how public schools are to keep students from wearing transparent garments, or any clothing at all. Once we get rid of that immodesty malarkey, that is.
So apparently you believe in an unlimited power of the state to impose dress codes in public schools, even in students who are technically (and legally) adults?
(of course, the fact that we treat 16- and 17-year olds as children its own travesty)
"Immodesty malarkey." There's a good turn of phrase to consider. The reasonable is "malarkey." The radical is somehow sensible in this absurd and idiotic new world.
Being radical does not stop one from being sensible. Indeed De Selby is not being radical enough to be sensible. :D
-
So apparently you believe in an unlimited power of the state to impose dress codes in public schools, even in students who are technically (and legally) adults?
Dress codes are not an "unlimited power". Try again.
(of course, the fact that we treat 16- and 17-year olds as children its own travesty)
Yeah, sorry. Too many 16-17 year olds are way too immature to be treated as adults. Since we have no test for general maturity where we can't say that we get to treat people older than that as children, we have to have an arbitrary age at which point "adulthood" is established.
Being radical does not stop one from being sensible. Indeed De Selby is not being radical enough to be sensible. :D
Yeah, about that. No. There seems to be this mentality of this girl (yes, she's a legal adult, but I doubt she has the maturity to make adult-level decisions) having a "right" to pose in whatever clothing or lack thereof and then have it posted in the school's yearbook. What about the rest of the student's right to not have a photo they feel is "slutty" in their yearbook?
-
So apparently you believe in an unlimited power of the state to impose dress codes in public schools, even in students who are technically (and legally) adults?
(of course, the fact that we treat 16- and 17-year olds as children its own travesty)
Being radical does not stop one from being sensible. Indeed De Selby is not being radical enough to be sensible. :D
Just as we impose dress codes on adults who, for whatever reason, are beyond the reach of compulsory attendance laws. The only difference is there is a difference between what you can wear out in the world to distract and disrupt the disciplined proceedings of the millieu and what you can wear to disrupt and distract the disciplined proceedings of the educational process - whether you feel it is indoctrinational of truely educational.
And since 16- and 17-year olds are children, why should we not treat them as such? Or do you favor lowering the age of maturiry and majority so than 12-year olds can once again work in the mines and mills, and 13-year olds can bear children without everybody having a hissy fit over it? Pardon me, but I was under the impression that western civilization had extended the age of childhood not only to keep adolescents out of the workforce so that older workers could have a chance to earn a wage, but to provide a "safe and secure" opportunity for them to develop a sense of being that allows them to fit into the greater society. (Yes, that right there is the indoctrination part of the plan!)
So that I do not go crazy imagining what you might think the purpose of lower (elementary and secondary) education is, why don't you spell it out?
stay safe.
-
I think the key here is that this is effectively a government publication - I don't think the government has much business dictating fashion trends. And being government products, schools should be exemplars of the limits on government power that we enjoy.
Many school policies purport to prohibit all kinds of speech, including t shirts with guns, NRA type advocacy, etc in addition to the immodesty malarkey. The fact that these policies are common doesn't make them any less statist - if everyone's money is paying for the school, it ought to have policies on speech and expression that are content neutral.
The first amendment has been curtailed for students, which would make this a dicey proposition in court for either party.
no its not a gov publication. its not paid for by nor does the gov make the decisions. try again
-
Government - and other - employees are there voluntarily. Students are not.
no one is forced to be in the yearbook.
-
And since 16- and 17-year olds are children, why should we not treat them as such?
I do not remember having been a child at that age. Indeed in no real-world sense is a 17-year-old a child.
Where I live the age of criminal responsibility is 16, at which point you can be tried like an adult. Yes, I would love to drop the age of maturity to 17 and 16, combined with voting rights, and I would also love to allow those few individuals of extraordinary development who can be emancipated earlier (say, at 15) to prove their ability to do so in court (an extended version of modern emancipation).
So that I do not go crazy imagining what you might think the purpose of lower (elementary and secondary) education is, why don't you spell it out?
In my view the purpose of education is divided into two separate parts:
1. Imparting knowledge and skills making it possible for an individual to find a job and take care of themselves in the greater world, as well as become a functioning citizen. Whether these skills be historical knowledge, firearm safety, etc.
2. Imparting one's values (aka "raising them right"). This is the purview of every education system, even ones that claim to be value neutral. Hippie parents hope their unschooled kids will be little hippies like themselves. Fistful hopes his future kids will be good Christians, I do not doubt. I hope that my children will be like myself.
This is not to say all ideas are equal (obviously my ideas are the best!) but that we must learn to cope with the moral reality that every single other person thinks that their ideas are the best.
In the long run, 2 affects 1. If you believe part of being a good citizen is knowing history then 19th Century American history will be on your high school curriculum. If you think that society should evolve gradually from using automobiles to mass transit, perhaps driving won't be.
But as long as the school system is run by the state, the school system will continue being political. This is by definition: the state is political. And then we are forced to contend with the fact that when I lose a political battle with fistful, fistful ends up setting up a dress code for my children. And when fistful loses a political battle with me, I end up choosing the content of his children's sex ed classes.
And half the time, these decisions will be made by an unelected 'education professional' appointed by a guy who was appointed by another guy back in 1983.
What education might look like in the MicroBalrog universe is an entirely different matter. But the chief things are that it would be overwhelmingly private, and with far more choice for everyone involved.
And if - if ! – we are to have public education, it should not work the way it does today.
-
no its not a gov publication. its not paid for by nor does the gov make the decisions. try again
I had the impression from De Selby's posts that this is not the case.
If it is, on what hellish grounds are they suing?
-
Government - and other - employees are there voluntarily. Students are not.
Children 16 and over are there voluntarily.
-
So apparently you believe in an unlimited power of the state to impose dress codes in public schools, even in students who are technically (and legally) adults?
Not quite. I see a duty on the part of any publicly-funded entity that supervises minors to set rules for them, even intrusive, onerous rules. This is what one does with minors. It must ever be thus. After all, they can't even walk down the hallway to the get a book out of their locker w/o permission, regardless how old they are. There exist limits to their free expression, but that's true for all of us.
Being radical does not stop one from being sensible. Indeed De Selby is not being radical enough to be sensible. :D
You're right. I used the value-neutral "radical," when I should have gone with something condemnatory - "barbaric," "regressive," etc. It is the backward, leftist impulse that purports to bring us out of the dark ages by denying there was any light to begin with.
-
Government - and other - employees are there voluntarily. Students are not.
Repeal truancy laws, and let parents decide how to educate their children.
-
Not quite. I see a duty on the part of any publicly-funded entity that supervises minors to set rules for them, even intrusive, onerous rules. This is what one does with minors. It must ever be thus.
It must?
Repeal truancy laws, and let parents decide how to educate their children.
You begin to understand, young padawan.
-
In most schools you are free to not submit a picture for the yearbook and you are not forced to pay for one. You will get a "no picture provided" block over your name.
Yearbooks therefore aren't part of the "mandatory" portion of public education.
Note also that the photo decision was at least partly made by students who took the time and effort to volunteer to be part of yearbook and thus be in a position to contribute to decisions about it. You want to influence what goes into the yearbook? Sack up and volunteer some of your precious time.
Otherwise, quitcherbitchin.
-
Ummmm...
I am confused...
The voleentarly thing...
You can choose to homeschool or send your child to a private school. 16 year olds can drop out with a GED, and the students may not be there voleentarly, but their parents/gardians did choose to send them their.
Ohh... And some bright and indepentdent kids do get emcipated early.
The reason it's rare is because they either can't handle it or they don't want it.
And comparing lack of clothing with free speech is ludicrius. Public indencency is not free speech, no matter how many nudist groups wish to claim it is.
-
In most schools you are free to not submit a picture for the yearbook and you are not forced to pay for one. You will get a "no picture provided" block over your name.
Me :P
-
You begin to understand, young padawan.
I'm really curious Micro. You realize that almost everyone posting here is in favor of abolishing public schools, right?
I'd like it to be done with vouchers that lets the bloated, useless public school system "wither on the vine."
-
It must?
Are you serious? Of course it must. Otherwise, you have minors skipping class, drinking, smoking, getting high, getting pregnant, etc. You'd have a lot of explaining to do, to a lot of parents.
You begin to understand, young padawan.
I'm not the apprentice you're looking for, Darth Paul. ;/ :P
-
I'm really curious Micro. You realize that almost everyone posting here is in favor of abolishing public schools, right?
I'm not sure that's true. =|
-
I am confused by this talk of some mythical "freedom of expression." What is the source of this misconception? The 1st Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let's parse that a bit:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ...
Does anyone see "expression" in the actual language of the 1st Amendment? I don't. How is barely covering one's titties with a shawl in any way "speech"? Moreover, the Congress didn't pass any laws saying high school seniors couldn't put trashy photos in the yearbook -- the yearbook staff did.
-
>Otherwise, you have minors skipping class, drinking, smoking, getting high, getting pregnant, etc<
As opposed to how well school administrations keep all those things to a minimum.
Oh, wait...
-
Does anyone see "expression" in the actual language of the 1st Amendment? I don't. How is barely covering one's titties with a shawl in any way "speech"? Moreover, the Congress didn't pass any laws saying high school seniors couldn't put trashy photos in the yearbook -- the yearbook staff did.
Images can constitute speech, as can actions. Flag-burning, for example.
The Supreme Court has treated pornography under the First, but left it to municipalities to determine what constitutes pornography.
-
Are you serious? Of course it must. Otherwise, you have minors skipping class, drinking, smoking, getting high, getting pregnant, etc. You'd have a lot of explaining to do, to a lot of parents.
Help me here.
Are you insisting not only that we must have rules, but also that we must have an elaborate and very harsh system of rules, or these things will occur? I ask this seriously, not out of argument, I seriously do not understand. Or are you just being sarcastic here?
-
Images can constitute speech, as can actions. Flag-burning, for example.
The Supreme Court has treated pornography under the First, but left it to municipalities to determine what constitutes pornography.
Clothing is specifically speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District)
-
I'm really curious Micro. You realize that almost everyone posting here is in favor of abolishing public schools, right?
Here's my argument and my argument is simple.
Conservatives love to portray public education as this liberal machine that drags children and young adults away into its indoctrination camps to force homosexuality and liberal postmodernism down their throats. This is of course true.
But because in politics many policies are actually the result of a sort of parallelogram of forces, social conservatism also had its input in the developement of public schools (at its inception, progressivism was... let us say, less liberal than it today aspires to be) and even today has some bearing on it. I like this sort of no-miniskirts-at-gunpoint quite as much as I like no-guns-at-gunpoint.
The destruction will only take place when people realize it's not a given political party that's given it to us, that it is, rather, a civilizational error that our ancestors committed en masse.
-
Clothing is specifically speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District)
And political speech is subject to strict scrutiny when the state attempts to restrict time, place, or manner. Dressing in a sexually provocative matter may be political speech, but it doesn't appear to be here. If she is indeed trying to nab the spotlight to land a modeling job, then it's commercial speech. And is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions.
Also, no one prevented her from having the photograph taken. Her freedom to express herself does not necessarily include any right to demand publication of her speech in the venue of her choice.
Sorry, I'm sure it's all been said earlier, I haven't been following the thread.
-
Can we get off the morelistic and so called "political" arguement and take a second to be practical?
How the hell are you supposed to get anything done (especially when dealing with teenage boys) when you have young females parading around half (or all the way) nekkid?
You don't. The root of this particular rule in society is practical. Sexuality and sexual expression are all nice and dandy, but they really don't leave much room to get anything else accomplished.
;/
With all the important and REAL issues our culture needs to deal with, a young ... ladys, for lack of a better term, choice of inappropriate garments and her need to flaunt such in front of her entire school is an entirely petty nonsequitor.
Freedom of speech is not a place to hold sacerd the whiny BS of a slutty little brat who screams "it's not fair" to have to follow the freeking rules.
-
Can we get off the morelistic and so called "political" arguement and take a second to be practical?
How the hell are you supposed to get anything done (especially when dealing with teenage boys) when you have young females parading around half (or all the way) nekkid?
It is excellent training for the workplace. Because I sure expect my male and female employees to be working, regardless of the attire of their colleagues. I also don't want any sexual harassment claims, either.
-
How the hell are you supposed to get anything done (especially when dealing with teenage boys) when you have young females parading around half (or all the way) nekkid?
How the hell am I supposed to get anything done when fistful posts provocative photos? ;)
Five pages on a yearbook photo. I'm amazed.
-
Can we get off the morelistic and so called "political" arguement and take a second to be practical?
How the hell are you supposed to get anything done (especially when dealing with teenage boys) when you have young females parading around half (or all the way) nekkid?
I managed to graduate quite well. With Excellence, even.
-
The Supreme Court has treated pornography under the First, but left it to municipalities to determine what constitutes pornography.
Yes, but did I mention the Supreme Court? You would, of course, be referring to the same Supreme Court that has ruled that "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed as long as not unreasonably so (while declining to address what might or might not be reasonable).
THAT Supreme Court?
-
Micro, you aren't making any non-moot points. Public schools are still very accountable at a local level. If the community this girl lived in was outraged about her right to take a photo looking like a street-walking whore and use it as her portrait, then the school's administration would instruct the yearbook staff to allow it, and it would be done. This has not happened and the people are getting exactly what they want in this case.
People are being allowed to purchase ad space and put whatever photo that they want in the book, she should shut up and do that.
Do you have a concept of what a yearbook is? I'm not sure how they do things where you are from, so honestly I am asking. Generally it has a section of portraits with names: one for each person. There are other sections with candids, team photos, faculty, events, etc. but the portrait list is what we are concerned with here.
In my high school the portraits were all done by the school. On portrait day everyone got in line and in turn we sat on a chair, were told to turn our head this way and tilt our chin that way and then *flash* and on to the next person. Everyone got a similar photo and there we all were and no one cried about their freedoms being trampled on because their portrait in the portrait pages was like everyone else's: smiling headshot on a neutral backdrop.
Every school does this and has for decades. The school in question does it, I guarantee. The only difference is that they allowed students to submit replacement portraits. This girl took that concept to the extreme, and beyond the entire point of the section (putting faces to names) with her "I just don't want my photo to be of me smiling in front of a wall. You will replace my portrait with this mediocre photography of me dressed as a slut, because my ass is a part of my identity!"
Even this thread's title is incorrect, inflammatory and misleading. Her photo wasn't banned from the yearbook. It was simply not accepted as a replacement for her portrait on the portrait page.
-
If the community this girl lived in was outraged about her right to take a photo looking like a street-walking whore and use it as her portrait, then the school's administration would instruct the yearbook staff to allow it, and it would be done. This has not happened and the people are getting exactly what they want in this case.]
Well that settles it then.
-
I managed to graduate quite well. With Excellence, even.
I think that pretty well says it all.....
-
CNY,
Not so much anymore for seniors only.
My HS required an outdoor informal photo, in most cases done by a professional. The school had a photo shoot day for seniors. I didn't go, but went to the studio for a private shoot.
I can say that everyone had to be fully clothed and whatnot. The bases is to allow for self expression and induviduality. I see this girl as taking advantage of what HAS been a nice traditional shift in yearbooks.
-
Can we get a factual report of what is happening?
Preferably in the form of some kind of legal documents?
On what grounds is the family suing? It is not possible to just sue someone out of the hat, you need to have some kind of grounds, at least far-fetched and frivolous ones.
Is the publication of the yearbook actually privately-administered?
-
:groan:
This thread makes me want to get out my yearbooks and bop people with them.
:facepalm:
-
Help me here.
Are you insisting not only that we must have rules, but also that we must have an elaborate and very harsh system of rules, or these things will occur? I ask this seriously, not out of argument, I seriously do not understand. Or are you just being sarcastic here?
I think we're not communicating well. I said "intrusive, onerous," not "elaborate and very harsh." I said "intrusive, onerous" because if we compared the rules most schools impose on minor students, to the rules that adults live by in workplaces and other public places where we go, they would seem very onerous and intrusive to us. A lot of those rules would be inappropriate and obnoxious when applied to adults in most scenarios, but they are reasonable and expected when applied to minors in a school environment. I think you will understand if I point out that the "nanny state" makes sense when the govt. is taking care of children.
>Otherwise, you have minors skipping class, drinking, smoking, getting high, getting pregnant, etc<
As opposed to how well school administrations keep all those things to a minimum.
Oh, wait...
To the same extent that our laws against murder and robbery and fraud and arson keep those things to a minimum. They don't stop everything that could go wrong, but you go ahead and take responsibility for someone else's child without establishing any rules or boundaries for the kid. You have to know that would be a bad idea.
-
How the hell am I supposed to get anything done when fistful posts provocative photos? ;)
Did I? Where? I wanna see! (I think you might have me confused with someone else.)
It is excellent training for the workplace. Because I sure expect my male and female employees to be working, regardless of the attire of their colleagues. I also don't want any sexual harassment claims, either.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Ms. Spies attire would be acceptable in the workplace?
-
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Ms. Spies attire would be acceptable in the workplace?
It no doubt would, if her workplace was the street.
-
I think we're not communicating well. I said "intrusive, onerous," not "elaborate and very harsh." I said "intrusive, onerous" because if we compared the rules most schools impose on minor students, to the rules that adults live by in workplaces and other public places where we go, they would seem very onerous and intrusive to us. A lot of those rules would be inappropriate and obnoxious when applied to adults in most scenarios, but they are reasonable and expected when applied to minors in a school environment. I think you will understand if I point out that the "nanny state" makes sense when the govt. is taking care of children.
Oh I understand your worldview now. Let us just say I find it... rather unworkable.
-
How so?
-
The reason our country is doomed is because idiots argue about things like this while the rest of the country slides into oblivion.
Just sayin.
For what its worth, no public funding went towards my yearbook in HS. They were printed by a private contractor, using money solely from purchases. The editorial staff was all students, and they pretty much chose the content.
Im pretty sure it's that way most places
-
How the hell are you supposed to get anything done (especially when dealing with teenage boys) when you have young females parading around half (or all the way) nekkid?
It was a bit distracting in a fun sort of way, when the long haired girl sitting in front of me in Spanish class back in 1971 was wearing a halter top. =D
-
The reason our country is doomed is because idiots argue about things like this while the rest of the country slides into oblivion.
Just sayin.
For what its worth, no public funding went towards my yearbook in HS. They were printed by a private contractor, using money solely from purchases. The editorial staff was all students, and they pretty much chose the content.
Im pretty sure it's that way most places
don't cloud the rhetoric with reality and facts! kill joy! >:D
-
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Ms. Spies attire would be acceptable in the workplace?
Not in my workplace, and I suspect not in most healthcare or corporate settings. The point is I disagree with BSL's contention that women should not wear such attire because it distracts men. I don't think that is a good excuse in the school or workplace environments. Suck it up and keep working, is my motto.
-
How so?
What is unclear? Even if we believed - which I do not - that the age of maturity should be set at 18, we should not be regulating the behavior of people who will be legal adults tomorrow in the same way in which we do the behavior of 8-year-olds and 10-year-olds. Gradually as this age approaches the rules should become simpler.
This is of course how my own school worked (students in their final year were exempt from uniform requirements, for instance, and starting with the year before that we were free to leave the school grounds between classes, something which would be deranged if it were allowed in the early primary grades).
Certainly I have no belief that I want the future of our society to be determined by people who spent their formative years as young adults being prodded and monitored at every step - remember that a few years after school ends they will commence voting.
-
What is unclear? Even if we believed - which I do not - that the age of maturity should be set at 18, we should not be regulating the behavior of people who will be legal adults tomorrow in the same way in which we do the behavior of 8-year-olds and 10-year-olds. Gradually as this age approaches the rules should become simpler.
This is of course how my own school worked (students in their final year were exempt from uniform requirements, for instance, and starting with the year before that we were free to leave the school grounds between classes, something which would be deranged if it were allowed in the early primary grades).
Certainly I have no belief that I want the future of our society to be determined by people who spent their formative years as young adults being prodded and monitored at every step - remember that a few years after school ends they will commence voting.
Because this girl's photograph was not approved as a replacement photo for the portrait section of the yearbook, you have determined that in Americuh, we emotionally stunt everyone and saddle them with no responsibilites whatsoever, treating them as a total child until they become 18 at which point we treat them as adults overnight?
-
Micro, I don't know where you got the idea that I favored some uniform set of rules for all minors. That wasn't my point at all. I'm just saying that parents in our culture don't treat teenagers (under 18, anyway) as full-fledged adults, and they don't want schools to do so, either. That doesn't mean they have to be treated like 8-year-olds.
-
Not in my workplace, and I suspect not in most healthcare or corporate settings. The point is I disagree with BSL's contention that women should not wear such attire because it distracts men. I don't think that is a good excuse in the school or workplace environments. Suck it up and keep working, is my motto.
It distracts women too.
I'm saying that it's unnessasry and unprofessional to wear such outfits outside a very few circumstanses.
There is nothing wrong with asking teens to dress approprietly.
-
schools have dress codes
(that usually exempt the cheerleaders)
The yearbook should follow the school policy for appropriate attire
The gal had several appropriate shots in the group that the EDITORs could pick from.
Yearbooks are not typical places for commercial modeling work to be contracted from either.
She has gotten her national exposure from that shoot now, but i don't see her getting an Elle or Maybeline contract.
Maybe the local hooters is hiring.
-
schools have dress codes
(that usually exempt the cheerleaders)
Wrestling team? Swim team?
-
Because this girl's photograph was not approved as a replacement photo for the portrait section of the yearbook, you have determined that in Americuh, we emotionally stunt everyone and saddle them with no responsibilites whatsoever, treating them as a total child until they become 18 at which point we treat them as adults overnight?
Obviously I reach my opinions by virtue of a single thread.
-
Obviously I reach my opinions by virtue of a single thread.
and experience
-
The swim team wears their garb in the pool.
To promote "school spirit"
the cheerleaders wear their uniforms during school hours
The school policy says skirts must be below the out stretched finger tips,
The cheerleaders skirts are much shorter.
-
Wrestling team? Swim team?
Fan flames much?
-
The swim team wears their garb in the pool.
To promote "school spirit"
the cheerleaders wear their uniforms during school hours
The school policy says skirts must be below the out stretched finger tips,
The cheerleaders skirts are much shorter.
Not at my high school they wern't
=|
-
Wrestling team? Swim team?
And actually the wrestling uniform covers quite a bit and a female swim team members suit covers most also. Your argument holds no water here.
-
And actually the wrestling uniform covers quite a bit and a female swim team members suit covers most also. Your argument holds no water here.
Snort! *expletive deleted*che'.
-
This thread is on its way to becoming one of the record-length APS threads. And over a yearbook photo? ???
-
This thread is on its way to becoming one of the record-length APS threads. And over a yearbook photo? ???
forums gotta know its priorities man
-
Wow. I had no idea anyone had such strong feelings about high school wrestling and swimming. ??? I just thought those might be other examples of revealing uniforms worn by high school sports teams. I'm not sure what water that was supposed to hold.
My high school didn't have a swim team, so I don't know about those uniforms, but our cheerleaders had skirts that were short-ish, with sleeveless tops. I guess the outfits are more revealing, some places.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wrestlinggear.com%2Fimages%2Fadidas-singlet-t8-multi.jpg&hash=28cdf669578985813a89b4f9211d502245b61430)
This is a wrestling uniform.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.internationaljock.com%2Fmatman-beijing-fila-cut-wrestling-singlet-royal%2C6554.html%253Ftrack%253Dfroogle%2526utm_source%253Dfrooglesite%2526utm_medium%253Dfeed%26amp%3Brct%3Dj%26amp%3Bsa%3DX%26amp%3Bei%3DJSEPT46iEaPm0QGRu4S2Aw%26amp%3Bved%3D0CIoBEPYCMAY%26amp%3Bq%3Dwrestling%2Bsinglets%26amp%3Busg%3DAFQjCNGiLxNZzKB51Tzrt2VbUTGfWimZFw&hash=13668cd6d79aa93e1214fb517a2b4d8a76c66727)
This is a wrestling uniform.
That's a really tiny wrestling uniform. I like the blue with the question mark, though. Looks like a superhero costume. ;)
-
Here are some more wrestling uniforms, and a lot of them provide less coverage than what you posted, wmenorr. FWIW
https://www.google.com/search?q=wrestling%20team&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=umsPT-e9NeXo2gXe0933Ag&biw=1280&bih=873&sei=vGsPT8CuLoqU2wXLu6CzAg
I guess they cover more than the outfit in question, but that doesn't mean they would be accepted in the photo, or in a classroom. I also think bluestarlizzard has a point about some outfits being more acceptable in certain circumstances.
-
Liz is correct IMHO.
It's about context.
-
Here are some more wrestling uniforms, and a lot of them provide less coverage than what you posted, wmenorr. FWIW
https://www.google.com/search?q=wrestling%20team&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=umsPT-e9NeXo2gXe0933Ag&biw=1280&bih=873&sei=vGsPT8CuLoqU2wXLu6CzAg
I guess they cover more than the outfit in question, but that doesn't mean they would be accepted in the photo, or in a classroom. I also think bluestarlizzard has a point about some outfits being more acceptable in certain circumstances.
What I posted happens to be the standard at the high school and college level for at least 30 years. Most of the pictures that show up, that are more revealing are going to be at least 2 generations if not farther back.
-
This was the wrestling team's uniform at my school in '68. The wrestler is Jim Ellingson, the school's champion for that year. He sewed his own uniform, and used pins and Crayola crayons to tattoo the likeness of Duffy, his cat, on his face.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3283%2F3068658820_fa4923b451.jpg&hash=8988f85e68b4b0c709092528bcb303fad91414f9)
-
This was the wrestling team's uniform at my school in '68. The wrestler is Jim Ellingson, the school's champion for that year. He sewed his own uniform, and used pins and Crayola crayons to tattoo the likeness of Duffy, his cat, on his face.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3283%2F3068658820_fa4923b451.jpg&hash=8988f85e68b4b0c709092528bcb303fad91414f9)
LOL
-
This was the wrestling team's uniform at my school in '68. The wrestler is Jim Ellingson, the school's champion for that year. He sewed his own uniform, and used pins and Crayola crayons to tattoo the likeness of Duffy, his cat, on his face.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3283%2F3068658820_fa4923b451.jpg&hash=8988f85e68b4b0c709092528bcb303fad91414f9)
I had absolutely no recollection that The Ultimate Warrior had a mullet. I suppose that makes sense, though, it being the Ultimate Haircutâ„¢.
-
I'm proud to say I had no idea who that was. :)
Chris
-
I can neither confirm nor deny that there is a picture of me in the high school yearbook wearing a speedo. Showing much more private area than this girls photo. And the outline of my genitalia.
However, IMHO, the yearbook committee has the right to tell the girl she cannot substitute the offical photo with her own provacative photo. 15 minutes of fame, entitlement, whoredom, whatever her reasoning, I'm just not sympathetic or caring for her supposed plight.
-
What I posted happens to be the standard at the high school and college level for at least 30 years. Most of the pictures that show up, that are more revealing are going to be at least 2 generations if not farther back.
Oh, OK. Thanks.
-
Well, now that everyone in America has seen her in her boobie scarf, I guess getting the picture in the yearbook isn't such a big deal :P
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wrestlinggear.com%2Fimages%2Fadidas-singlet-t8-multi.jpg&hash=28cdf669578985813a89b4f9211d502245b61430)
This is a wrestling the required uniform.
Tights.
-
Tights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc1am3KyYgA
-
But it was the yearbook committee, made up of students, that said no.
Good for them!
I worked in a school district that needed a dress code, and created one, for the kids and staff. Quoting a teen male, "'Bout time the ho-s had to wear some clothes."
What the kids wear when they go "out" should be different that what they wear in class. Our school district doesn't have a dress code, but if it is "distracting and limiting education" the student can turn the T-Shirt with inappropriate slogans inside out, or if too much skin, borrow a sweatshirt from the office.
-
>Tights<
So... now you just need the lobotomy?