Student Charged After Refusing To Remove NRA Shirt

[Los1324]

No. Disrupting the educational process is a law.



c) The teacher may exclude from his or her classroom or school bus any student who is guilty of disorderly conduct; who in any manner interferes with an orderly educational process; who threatens, abuses or otherwise intimidates or attempts to intimidate a school employee or a student; who willfully disobeys a school employee; or who uses abusive or profane language directed at a school employee.

I know the SC version better but there's the WV version.



They don't "outlaw" it. They ban it. There's a difference - and if the student doesn't follow the rules and cause an uproar, the police will get involved.

You intentionally cut off my quote before the most important part in order to take it out of context. I said all those things are legal in this country if they fall within the student's protected first amendment rights. All states have laws making disrupting the educational process illegal; however, if the school claims that a student is "disrupting the educational" process, when that student is expressing his/her first amendment rights, the charge will not stand.

I am a criminal defense lawyer and I have had dozens of students that I represented acquitted of such charges because their "disruption" was nothing more than a trumped up way of trying to silence the student from validly expressing themselves.[/QUOTE]


Lol. No, you're not. A school disciplining a child is not a criminal matter, nor are the children "charged" of any crime to be acquitted with.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it is. Every state has a law making it the juvenile equivalent of a crime to disrupt the educational process. The version I am most familliar with, being a member of the Virginia Bar, is VA Code 18.2-415(C): C. Willfully or while intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts the operation of any school or any activity conducted or sponsored by any school, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the operation or activity or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed.

This is a criminal statute, the alleged violation of which lands the juvenile in court facing possible criminal sanctions.

[jaykaywhy]

"it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate" Supreme Court

"undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression" Supreme Court

"On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools."
Tinker v. Des Moines. 393 U.S. 503

[rhandric]

Wait, what did you think the punishment is for being disruptive? Prison? It usually means legally enforced disciplinary procedures. Considering the student was arrested, the administration must have considered his protests above and beyond the remit of the school's immediate disciplinary procedures.

No, there's a vast middle ground between "removed from class" and "arrested". Say, detention? Suspension? But sure, go ahead and jump right to the absolute worst result

No, that's what it appears to you, someone uneducated and with zero experience in the field, about legal and disciplinary procedure, who has argued for things that are clearly against the law. To someone with all the experience and knowledge and who knows that calling the police is a protective measure, it appears to be done by the book and to ensure the student had a fair shake.

Oh, so I'm uneducated now, because I disagree with you? Great tactics you've got here. Sure, I might not be a teacher (those who can, do, those who can't, teach...) but there's these 2 little things called common sense, and thinking.
And since you claim to be so educated, you should know a thing or two about zero tolerance. Which is how this case appears to an outside observer, based on the details

Clearly done to cover their own arses and prevent being sued. Given how Americans love suing and fucking over school districts for a nice payday, while damaging thousands of their fellow citizen's lives, I'd again say the school is doing the right thing.

They're rightfully letting the case go to the court to see what the correct position is.

Well, it hasn't made it to court yet, and I would prefer that it didn't tie up such resources as the cops and the already strained legal system (hell, the way the court system is overloaded, he probably won't get a ruling until he's 25)

[Los1324]

So you fully approve of a shirt that says Abortion is good, to bad your mom didnt have one.

What I approve of, just like what you approve of, is irrelevant. The question is whether that shirt would be protected by the first amendment or not.

[theturn]

So you fully approve of a shirt that says Abortion is good, to bad your mom didnt have one.

Did this kids shirt say, "guns are good because they kill dumb people"

Strawman

[Tinykong]

Another important question, is why was the student sent to the office? It's entirely possible that the teacher asked him to remove it, and he went into a diatribe about how he had a right to wear it, they were fascist for telling him to take it off, and made a huge scene.

Until there is a really clear timeline of events, I'm just going to side with the school policy, and let the constitutional scholars and lawyers argue about the speech being protected.

[rhandric]

Another important question, is why was the student sent to the office? It's entirely possible that the teacher asked him to remove it, and he went into a diatribe about how he had a right to wear it, they were fascist for telling him to take it off, and made a huge scene.

Until there is a really clear timeline of events, I'm just going to side with the school policy, and let the constitutional scholars and lawyers argue about the speech being protected.

From experience, a lot of teachers have the idea that since they're an authority figure, it's their way or the highway (not that there are any teachers in our midst with that mindset....*cough*)
But, since we don't have a clear timeline as to what happened, I'm going to side with the student for following the dress code, and most likely serious mishandling on both sides after the initial order to change shirts.

[theturn]

"On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools."
Tinker v. Des Moines. 393 U.S. 503

Was the student causing a loss of "control and conduct?" Not until the teacher got involved. If he had been standing on a table yelling "go guns" then yes he should be removed and the shirt never seen again. But he wasn't, there is nothing that suggests he was doing anything to cause a disruption. The teacher instigated the disruption.

[Zhangfei]

No, there's a vast middle ground between "removed from class" and "arrested". Say, detention? Suspension? But sure, go ahead and jump right to the absolute worst result

Indeed. But the point is the school thought the student's behaviour was so bad they didn't have the remit for disciplinary procedures to hand. I don't know the district's rules and I doubt you do, but if a student is being so bad that the immediate disciplinary acts aren't enough, then you have to deal with the problem right then. You can't just throw a kid off the property in the middle of the day and if you consider him dangerous, then detention won't be enough.

Oh, so I'm uneducated now, because I disagree with you? Great tactics you've got here. Sure, I might not be a teacher (those who can, do, those who can't, teach...) but there's these 2 little things called common sense, and thinking.

Yes, but there's also the law and you keep ignoring it or putting stuff in your head you think is right but are actually very, very, dangerously wrong. You're clearly not educated to know the role of the teacher or administrator but yet you keep arguing as if you do.

And since you claim to be so educated, you should know a thing or two about zero tolerance. Which is how this case appears to an outside observer, based on the details

I don't care how it "appears" to you, I'd rather deal with proper, effective and legally required procedure that schools follow and not extrapolate mindless and meaningless opinion based on "common sense."

Well, it hasn't made it to court yet, and I would prefer that it didn't tie up such resources as the cops and the already strained legal system (hell, the way the court system is overloaded, he probably won't get a ruling until he's 25)

We both hope it doesn't end up in court, the student apologises for his misbehaviour, is given some softer disciplinary action (he's already been suspended so there you go,) the teacher is given a crash course in personal management and everybody is happy. However, the student's need for attention by wearing the same t-shirt clearly shows he's not interested in learning from his mistake. In these cases instead of it being a student and administration at loggerheads, it behooves everyone to take it to court.

From experience, a lot of teachers have the idea that since they're an authority figure, it's their way or the highway (not that there are any teachers in our midst with that mindset....*cough*)

It's not a mindset. It's a law. Teachers are wardens and responsible for their students. Imagine if I just let little Rhandric out of my class because you were ignorant and kept making false claims, disrupting my class. You walk off school property and, deciding it's common sense that people should drive on the left side of the road, look the wrong way and get hit by a car.

Who goes to prison? Me. I'm legally responsible for you. When I tell my students to do stuff, I do it for their safety and because it's my job to do so.

But, since we don't have a clear timeline as to what happened, I'm going to side with the student for following the dress code, and most likely serious mishandling on both sides after the initial order to change shirts.

You don't know the whole story, you don't know the law, you don't know the responsibilities of the teacher, you don't know how to handle students and you do know the student broke the dress code yet you side with him.

Lol.

[jaykaywhy]

Was the student causing a loss of "control and conduct?" Not until the teacher got involved. If he had been standing on a table yelling "go guns" then yes he should be removed and the shirt never seen again. But he wasn't, there is nothing that suggests he was doing anything to cause a disruption. The teacher instigated the disruption.

I honestly don't care one way or the other about this particular instance. I'm pointing out the biased way you misrepresented what the Court had said to make it seem as though children in schools enjoy Constitutional protections to the same degree as adults outside of school.

[araine]

Did this kids shirt say, "guns are good because they kill dumb people"

Strawman

So you agree that the abortion shirt doesnt belong in a high school and that it is offensive etc. Same reason can be applied to the gun shirt it is highly OFFENSIVE in the wake of Newtown,

Free speech always have limitations on it. there is a reason for why you arent allowed to go in School with a Tee shirt with just K K K written on it,

And i will say it isnt for Ku Klux Klan it is a tee shirt commemorating that our local baseball pitcher had 3 strike outs last night. And that it has NOTHING with the klan to do. Still it doesnt matter that it isnt even intended to be a klan support tee shirt. It will still be a violation of dress code.

[rhandric]

Indeed. But the point is the school thought the student's behaviour was so bad they didn't have the remit for disciplinary procedures to hand. I don't know the district's rules and I doubt you do, but if a student is being so bad that the immediate disciplinary acts aren't enough, then you have to deal with the problem right then. You can't just throw a kid off the property in the middle of the day and if you consider him dangerous, then detention won't be enough.
Yes, but there's also the law and you keep ignoring it or putting stuff in your head you think is right but are actually very, very, dangerously wrong. You're clearly not educated to know the role of the teacher or administrator but yet you keep arguing as if you do.
I don't care how it "appears" to you, I'd rather deal with proper, effective and legally required procedure that schools follow and not extrapolate mindless and meaningless opinion based on "common sense."

Again, there are numerous examples of administrators abdicating their responsibilities in favor of letting the police handle it. Whether this is one of those cases, I don't know, but with the details we know, it appears that way. And again, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I can only form opinions and ideas off the details we have, of which there are some but not enough to make a strong conclusion.

We both hope it doesn't end up in court, the student apologises for his misbehaviour, is given some softer disciplinary action (he's already been suspended so there you go,) the teacher is given a crash course in personal management and everybody is happy. However, the student's need for attention by wearing the same t-shirt clearly shows he's not interested in learning from his mistake. In these cases instead of it being a student and administration at loggerheads, it behooves everyone to take it to court.

Sure he was suspended; I was suspended in middle school for defending myself (which is why zero tolerance policies piss me off). However, suspension is the school equivalent of being charged with something - it doesn't mean you're guilty, it just means that policy says X and evidence points to this so the result is Z.

It's not a mindset. It's a law. Teachers are wardens and responsible for their students. Imagine if I just let little Rhandric out of my class because you were ignorant and kept making false claims, disrupting my class. You walk off school property and, deciding it's common sense that people should drive on the left side of the road, look the wrong way and get hit by a car.

Who goes to prison? Me. I'm legally responsible for you. When I tell my students to do stuff, I do it for their safety and because it's my job to do so.

So you're saying you're legally able to have a power trip and think that your opinion is fact? Amazing law you've got there

You don't know the whole story, you don't know the law, you don't know the responsibilities of the teacher, you don't know how to handle students and you do know the student broke the dress code yet you side with him.

I don't know the story, I do know the law, I do know the responsibilities of teachers, I do know how to handle students (though, the student's I've dealt with were older), and I do know the student only broke the dress code in the broadest sense of the form. I also know that teachers and administrators abuse, misuse, and abdicate their power, in varying circumstances.

As I said, I side with the kid for wearing the shirt, as it is not against the written school policy. How it was handled, by all parties involved, was a complete clusterfuck. Get it?

[Zhangfei]

Again, there are numerous examples of administrators abdicating their responsibilities in favor of letting the police handle it. Whether this is one of those cases, I don't know, but with the details we know, it appears that way. And again, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I can only form opinions and ideas off the details we have, of which there are some but not enough to make a strong conclusion.

But your opinions and ideas are not based on any remote knowledge or understanding of school procedure, responsibility or law. Even when you've been educated of the rules you've continued down fallacious paths.

Sure he was suspended; I was suspended in middle school for defending myself (which is why zero tolerance policies piss me off). However, suspension is the school equivalent of being charged with something - it doesn't mean you're guilty, it just means that policy says X and evidence points to this so the result is Z.

It's clear he was guilty of not obeying the WV law about doing what the teacher asked of him. Flipping a t-shirt inside out is not asking a student to perform an illegal act, ergo the student is in the wrong. If he'd been asked to deface it, then the teacher would be in the wrong.

[rhandric]

But your opinions and ideas are not based on any remote knowledge or understanding of school procedure, responsibility or law. Even when you've been educated of the rules you've continued down fallacious paths.

The only thing my opinions are lacking are a full detailed timeline of how events progressed.

It's clear he was guilty of not obeying the WV law about doing what the teacher asked of him. Flipping a t-shirt inside out is not asking a student to perform an illegal act, ergo the student is in the wrong. If he'd been asked to deface it, then the teacher would be in the wrong.

The WV law that you quoted earlier in the thread says nothing about being required to obey the teacher in all acts, merely that the teacher has the right to remove you from his classroom if you interfere with the operations of the class. And again, I'm not saying the student handled the situation properly, just that the school (teacher+administrators) handled it poorly as well.

[theturn]

I honestly don't care one way or the other about this particular instance. I'm pointing out the biased way you misrepresented what the Court had said to make it seem as though children in schools enjoy Constitutional protections to the same degree as adults outside of school.

I dropped two quotes. I didn't edit them or even have commentary attached to them. They stand for what they are. You on the other hand must not understand what terms like "comprehensive authority" and "safeguards" mean. The quote you dropped isn't law its commentary. Schools have to have some power over its students otherwise they could whatever they want in a classroom and site the first amendment. Its why we have dress codes, largely to prevent vulgarity. The courts said you cannot prevent someones free speech just because you walk into school, its that simple. They have the right to free speech same as outside of the classroom as long as it doesn't disrupt the services being provided at the school, namely learning.

Being able to google and copy and paste something is irrelevant if you don't understand what you are finding.

[Zhangfei]

The only thing my opinions are lacking are a full detailed timeline of how events progressed.

And any real knowledge, experience or justification apart from bellyaching over zero tolerance, which wasn't even mentioned, ignoring the written effects of why the student broke the dress code (he absolutely did) and broke the law (he absolutely did) and then somehow blaming other people.

The WV law that you quoted earlier in the thread says nothing about being required to obey the teacher in all acts, merely that the teacher has the right to remove you from his classroom if you interfere with the operations of the class. And again, I'm not saying the student handled the situation properly, just that the school (teacher+administrators) handled it poorly as well.

The teacher only handled it poorly by confronting him in front of the class because inevitably, a jackass kid will play it up and make a meal out of it. Nevertheless, that's not illegal, against any sort of rules or justifies the kid's behaviour.

The law states you must obey teachers at all times, but of course not all acts, because then you'd be opening the door for allowing teachers to get students to break the law. That's blatantly obvious.

[theturn]

The only thing my opinions are lacking are a full detailed timeline of how events progressed.


The WV law that you quoted earlier in the thread says nothing about being required to obey the teacher in all acts, merely that the teacher has the right to remove you from his classroom if you interfere with the operations of the class. And again, I'm not saying the student handled the situation properly, just that the school (teacher+administrators) handled it poorly as well.

The focus is being drawn away from the initial act, the teacher asking for the shirt to be removed, everything after that is irrelevant. Should it have been handled better, absolutely, but it shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. He doesn't want to debate that part.

[rhandric]

And any real knowledge, experience or justification apart from bellyaching over zero tolerance, which wasn't even mentioned, ignoring the written effects of why the student broke the dress code (he absolutely did) and broke the law (he absolutely did) and then somehow blaming other people.

The teacher only handled it poorly by confronting him in front of the class because inevitably, a jackass kid will play it up and make a meal out of it. Nevertheless, that's not illegal, against any sort of rules or justifies the kid's behaviour.

The law states you must obey teachers at all times, but of course not all acts, because then you'd be opening the door for allowing teachers to get students to break the law. That's blatantly obvious.

And there you go, completely ignoring what actually happened in this case.

[Zhangfei]

And there you go, completely ignoring what actually happened in this case.

Self-reflection is a wonderful thing and admirable.

The focus is being drawn away from the initial act, the teacher asking for the shirt to be removed, everything after that is irrelevant. Should it have been handled better, absolutely, but it shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. He doesn't want to debate that part.

The teacher has the authority to do that (as in, replace t-shirt or flip it inside out, not just removal) given the school codes and WV law. That's not even in question.

[theturn]

And any real knowledge, experience or justification apart from bellyaching over zero tolerance, which wasn't even mentioned, ignoring the written effects of why the student broke the dress code (he absolutely did) and broke the law (he absolutely did) and then somehow blaming other people.

If he had broken the dress code he wouldn't have been allowed to wear it again. He with many others wore the shirt again. Do dress code standards change depending on what day it is?