Student's photo banned from yearbook

[MicroBalrog]

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

[AmbulanceDriver]

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?

[vaskidmark]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Government - and other - employees are there voluntarily. Students are not.

no one is forced to be in the yearbook.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[makattak]

Government - and other - employees are there voluntarily. Students are not.

Children 16 and over are there voluntarily.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

Government - and other - employees are there voluntarily. Students are not.

Repeal truancy laws, and let parents decide how to educate their children.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

[BlueStarLizzard]

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.

[Tallpine]

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 

[makattak]

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."

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Strings]

>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...

[Monkeyleg]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

Clothing is specifically speech.

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.

[BlueStarLizzard]

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.