* T-shirt controversy misses point of school

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Letters to the Editor

T-shirt controversy misses point of school

Tue, 10/17/2006 - 4:09pm

By: Letters to the ...

I am totally amazed at the discussions that I’ve read in this newspaper regarding the Dixie T-shirt ordeal at Flat Rock Middle School. Suffice it to say that racial issues are still very prevalent and important in today’s times.

Accepting or rejecting the Southern heritage or the Malcolm X supporters is not what our schools are designed for. They are there for kids to be taught reading, ‘ritin’ and ‘rithmetic — the three R’s.

Today’s kids, including my own, have too many choices, too many opportunities, too much that diverts them from their school work. If they are not being text-messaged on their phones, or having someone respond to them on their MySpace, or worrying about which $5 cup of coffee they are going to drink with the gang, it’s something else that is so very unimportant.

That’s why I have repeatedly asked and encouraged our school board members to push for school uniforms. Let’s get the kids’ focus back on learning rather than on some political/social/religious issue that has nothing directly to do with their learning. I’m tired of the politically correct subjects as well, but the first step is to get the kids to learn, and getting uniforms is the first step.

Several years ago, Kathy Cox hosted a meeting and I asked her about all of the challenges that our schools had in getting the kids to learn. I asked her what we needed most: more teachers, more security, newer schools, etc. She stated unequivocally that if she could make one change in the public schools it would be to make them all uniformed.

Sad to say that she either chose not to push that as school superintendent for the state or she was blocked in doing it.

I’m still amazed at the parents that have yelled at me for raising such an issue as this. They comment about their child’s freedom of expression being infringed upon as if that’s why their kids go to school.

Well, in the real world (you kids at Flat Rock pay heed) you have the right to freedom of expression — and the right not to work because your employer fires you for wearing a Dixie shirt.

You have the right to scream black power and wear big X’s on your T-shirts, and you also have the right to live on the streets when you can’t get a job because you demand the right to freedom of expression.

You have the right to wear nose rings and tattoos all up and down your bodies, and I as a potential employer have the right NOT to hire you when you come looking for a job. (I also have the right to shake my head as you leave, wondering what in heaven’s name you were thinking when you thought a nose ring or neck tattoo would make you qualified to work in a business environment.)

You kids at Flat Rock have a learning lesson in this awful distraction. It ain’t about what you have the right to do. It’s about getting prepared for the real world where no one cares about your rights.

They care about building a family, building a business or career, and generally learning to have a life.

We all have the right in America to express ourselves and to look like total idiots in doing so. But I’d advise you students and the respective parents to take off the stupid T-shirts, wear something that places the focus back on succeeding in this life, rather than in acting like a bunch of spoiled whiners.

If not, then might I suggest you start learning the following phrase: “Would you like to super-size that order?”

Those that want to continue to identify themselves with a certain group, whether it’s those that are pro-black power, or pro-Dixie heritage, or for that matter pro- or anti- anything, please do so knowing that until you become an individual and not merely a member of a mob that you will never fully become all that you can be.

Grow up, use this time to learn your lessons and leave this silly distraction to the future minimum wage employees of America.

Richard D. Hobbs
Richard D. Hobbs and Assoc.
Fayetteville, Ga.

Uniforms vs Strict Dress Code

Submitted by 1bighammer on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 10:24am.

Supposedly we have a dress code in Fayette County...the problem is the interpretation of it by school administrators. Some let things slide...others don't. The flap at Flat Rock is a perfect example of interpretation. A student was told that he could not wear his "Real Men Are Black" shirt to school last year, this year he has worn it multiple times with no consequences. Why was it not OK last year and Ok this year? The same with the Dixie Outfitter shirts. My children attended Flat Rock in the past and students wore them with no repercussions, why the change this year?

The dress code should be specific in its approach and if it takes a "uniform" to do so then so be it. It doesn't have to be a Uniform like most people think. Spell out acceptable colors and styles for shirts and pants. The acceptable wearing of them(shirts buttoned, pants pulled up properly, no boxers showing, no do rags and no hats. As long as a parent or child could buy these type items anywhere, and not have to purchase specific brands and from specific clothiers, What would be the problem?

No offense MR. GARY PETER KLAHR, but it's lawyers like you that won't allow the schools in this country to flourish because you worry about a kids "right" to wear a stupid shirt. Maybe Lawyers should quit trying to help kids be iconoclasts and help make them mob-ocrats that are concerned with learning.

Of course we can't blame it all on Lawyers, parents have to shoulder part of the blame also. When I was a kid, the only rights I had were the ones my PARENTS gave me. Seldom did those rights contradict the school's administration. They probably would have loved for me to have specific generic items to wear to school too. It would have saved my mama the trouble of having to pick out clothes that matched.

If more so called PARENTS would be REAL PARENTS and not best friends, we wouldn't have half the problems we do now.

Not all Lawyers are idiots

Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Fri, 10/20/2006 - 10:26am.

At least I hope not.

I do not know who this Mr. Klahr is, perhaps I should ask, but the issue is very complex but in reality is very simple.

Whatever our government does, such as to host public schools, means that private citizens have rights that can not be superceded by the State, except of course for those specially carved out by our Courts.

Such as the right to bare arms. We have that right in our Constitution, but no one would argue that our children should be bringing their weapons to school.

We have the right to speak our mind and to let others know our opinions, but in a school atmosphere we restrict free speech to allow the teacher to control the discussions, to have time to have quiet test times etc. Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

Freedom of expression has been ruled upon by the Supremes as also allowing KKK members to march with their uniforms covering their faces, which violated numerous laws that sought to prevent these type of events. Does Mr. Klahr advocate the ability of our students to wear white hoods to school?

No of course he doesn't. What he argues is a matter of degree. No uniforms but a policy that can be "interpretated". He wants the degree to be what HE THINKS is appropriate. Well leaving this standard up to him, or to the schools adminstration causes me some concern. I therefore hold the view that the standard should be an across the board ban of all unapproved clothes. Some of our schools are currently doing it and the teachers that work there LOVE IT. They even love wearing their own version of uniforms themselves.

The point is "uniform" clothing standards such as button down shirts and blue pants, etc. that have already been used in many of our schools, is the uniform that I mention. No more Braves T-shirts, no more Texas Hold'em or Michael Vick shirts. No more Dixie flags or Malcomm X shirts. Just clothing designed not to show diversity, but clothing to encourage learning and to re-focus the kids back to what they are there for....learning.

I'm just amazed at the ignorance of some that live in this community. Then again, that makes me rather naive I guess. But I'm still in awe of what some "educated" folk have to say about these types of things.

I always thought our schools were there to teach our kids, not to allow them to express themselves. If so, then what are Malls for?

The right to bare arms

Submitted by loanarranger707 on Fri, 10/20/2006 - 1:06pm.

Not all lawyers are idiots, but some of them sure are funny.

Try this one for size: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(I merely smiled at your spelling of "supersede," but I got a laugh at your right to "bare" arms. Funny lawyer, you!)

My arms aren't bare

Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Fri, 10/20/2006 - 4:21pm.

Actually the right to bare arms is a funny sitcom with Larry the Cable guy.

As to my spelling, I'm an excellent speller, especially when my program has an auto-spell check, which this one doesn't.

But I'm glad my point was understood. Maybe if I had paid more attention to my studies when I was in school, rather than in wearing my Bob Seger Hollywood Nights T-shirt to school, then I wouldn't be having to rely upon a spell check to keep from sounding ignorant.

Side's being a Lawyer doesn't mean I'm any smarter than anyone else. I know my grandmother had more common sense, or horse sense as she would say, than I have today, and she only went to grammer school.

Uniforms & T-shirts

Submitted by klahr123 on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 11:07am.

Mr. bighammer---It is YOU who don't get it. I do NOT---N O T _-defend bad or immature behavior by schoolkids are you seem to claim. What I do defend is the right of KIDS---and especially RESPONSIBLE PARENTS---to dress diversely in this country--AS LONG AS IT IS APPROPRIATE.
Your comments are WAY off the mark and totally misrepresent my views. Kids who are disruptive---through clothing or otherwise---should be EXPELLED; I voted for 40 expulsions or more during my terms on the Phoenix HS board. But the kids I am talking about are good kids with good behavior and high marks; they do not want to wear indecent or "fancy" clothes but just the same clothes I wore in elementary school 50 years ago---tee shirts & levis---well-fitted and properly worn---NOT showing underwear or whatever!!
And the Supreme Court (not ME) has declared that kids do NOT give up the right to express opinions at the schoolhouse gate---argue with them---NOT ME!! In NO case have I sued for money damages from schools---only to protect the rights of PARENTS ( I never represented a kid w/o a parent against a school) to decide such questions as curfews & school clothing. And I only represented RESPONSIBLE parents. As I said, under YOUR philosophy, clothing worn
by Congressmen and lawyers would get one thrown out of a PUBLIC school.
And although I agree with him that dress policies should be CONSISTENT, that does NOT mean everyone should be forced to dress alike to make it easier to enforce dress codes. It would also be easier to run a restaurant if there was only one entree on the menu, but even McDonald's gives 10-15 choices these days.
In short, DIVERSITY is what America is all about; if you want total conformity/uniformity, go to Islamic countries or China.

Hammer - hammered Klahr

Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 2:53pm.

Uh, Mr, Klahr, relax. You are yelling (in typing terms) and you are misspeaking and using inappropriate grammer. You did suggest that kids should be able to wear what we consider \\\'offensive\\\' shirts. The fact that you are the type of parent that would send your child to school is such \\\'garbage\\\' is why we need a uniform. If you would think of something other than your \\\'right\\\' to offend others you might be able to see why you are part of the problem. You may want your kid to wear a shirt saying \\\"Bush sucks\\\" or that shows blacks picking cotton but we don\\\'t want it in our schools. wear it on the weekend at your pot rally or your Cindy Sheehan salute but not to school. Duh! Good job Hammer - you smoked the \\\'lawyer\\\' Eye-wink

Hammer - hammered Klahr

Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 2:52pm.

YES to uniforms!

Submitted by maggie on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 9:30am.

I absolutely agree that uniforms are the right thing for our schools. This will allow for more focus on students learning to express themselves through their words and actions, as well as their clothes.

Reply to Maggie

Submitted by klahr123 on Sat, 10/21/2006 - 12:40am.

You contradict yourself in your last line. You propose speech only in the classroom and NOT on clothing. Unfortunately for you, that is NOT the law. Of course most ideas need discussion in class and through written papers---but Bumper-sticker-type logos and slogans have their place in America as conversation-starters. That is why you see very few 15 or 30 min political ads on TV---but a lot of 30-sec ads; NO ONE is suggesting kids should replace term papers with logo tees--but BOTH have a place in PUBLIC schools---and the courts have so ruled. In Oklahoma in the segregation days, a bigoted school bd tried to expel a black girl for wearing a pin on her top against segregation; the conservative 5th Circuit struck that down about 50 years ago in BURNSIDE v. BYERS.
In all due respect, it is YOU---Maggie--who are out of step and radical on this---NOT ME!!!!

Uniforms are ABSURD

Submitted by klahr123 on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 2:57am.

Mr. Hobbs sounds like George Bush----my way or the highway. In America, we believe in DIVERSITY---as JFK preached. The idea that all kids have to look alike or think alike is alien to our system. The U.S. Sup. Ct put it well in the TINKER and other cases---kids are entitled to express political/social opinions on their SCHOOL clothing (not just on the street) AS LONG AS it is not substantially disruptive; as long as it doesn't imply the school system agrees; and as long as the words and pictures (logos) are not vulgar or obscene.

Ironically, it is exactly the FAST FOOD places he cites wherein adults wear uniforms; the best & the brightest---scientists & engineers at Apple, Intel & Microsoft--don't wear unis---and often don't even have a dress code. There is nothing wrong with school DRESS CODES that bar obscene or indecent clothing, as in adult life. But there is NO reason kids should have to wear unis or be barred from expressing non-vulgar opinions on tee shirts; the fact that speech OFFENDS someone---or even most people--- is NOT a basis for banning it in the U.S. under the 1st Amendment---for either kids or adults. Obviously, shirts advocating violence or illegal acts should not be permitted, but 90+ pct of t-shirt logos are NOT in that category; rather they promote athletic teams, Disney characters or political views like "Bush is a Terrorist"---a shirt upheld by federal court in Michigan last year. Your poll shows a plurality in favor of permitting such shirts; Mr Hobbs is in the minority. Kids wearing logo shirts are iconoclasts---the exact opposite of mindless mob-ocrats as he posits. Indeed experience at one Sacramento, Calif middle school showed gang members ALL wore the uni w/o protest; they are NOT individualists and had no problem with uniforms; but the best & the brightest refused; the average GPA of opt-out kids was almost straight-A ---quite different from Hobbs' theory.
In short, ALL kids must wear APPROPRIATE clothes to school---but they need not be uniform or formal or blank; today's kids need to be MORE involved in political-social issues---not less; today's kids are WIMPS---not rebels. The Newspasper here in Phoenix reported on a Cindy Sheehan anti-wear rally last week and noted ALMOST NO YOUNG PEOPLE present---most were middle-aged women.
Again, there ARE SOME kids who would wear inappropriate school clothes if permitted; dress code enfoprcement can easily deal with that as it does in 90+ pct of U.S, schools; there is no need to ban tee shirts or logos on shirts---even if it was legal, which it isn't.
I know what I am talking about. I am a retired attorney who has litigated these cases and I served 8 years on the Governing Board of the Phx Union HS District---the 2nd largest HS-only district in the country./s/ GARY PETER KLAHR

Uniforms are the solution Mr. Klahr

Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 10:53am.

Uniforms are indeed the solution as long as you have parents who do not responsibly filter what their students wear.

The problem is that you have knee jerk reactions like those of klahr123. Emotive thinking initially may tell you we would be stiffling creativity; however, the reality is you can be an individual without expressing it with your clothes (and you can still do it with your clothes after hours and on weekends, holidays and summer).

Emotive thinkers like klahr represent the liberal mindset as evidenced by the irrelavant and short sighted Bush bashing to begin the article and the random referances to Cindy Sheehan and liberal buzz words throughout. I would argue that diversity and creativity are and should remain mental traits and not physical traits. Klahr's assumption would mean that all students in private schools and in public schools who wear uniforms are lacking in creativity or have been somehow "mindless Mob-crats". I doubt anyone could back that up Eye-wink

Klahr also states that:

"Kids wearing logo shirts are iconoclasts---the exact opposite of mindless mob-ocrats as he posits." sic

Klah's desire to create (other) iconoclasts, (( i·con·o·clast
1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.)) is yet further evidence that his shallow views are out of the 'mainstream' and would be disruptive to an established environment. In fact, the proof of the desire to create a disruption (his mens rea if you will) is contained within his own choice of words.

The Tinker case he cites is actually the Supreme Court case law that gives the school the authority to determine what is disruptive to the LEARNING environment- NOT the parent or student. While the first amendment was considered, the right to maintain a non-disruptive learning environment took precedence.

In conclusion, as long as parents allow students to use a forum like a public school to express political and social views, or anti-social views (iconoclastic views) you will have a problem.

Political discourse and discussion should take place through the classroom noot the bumper sticker or Tee shirt.

As a side note, all of the research I have seen, and I have seen a lot too Gary, shows positive results in the areas of discipline, attendance and academic performance.

In conclusion, for the many of you who support uniforms, the BOEs unwillingness to confront the few loud, emotive and defensive, liberal iconoclasts like Mr. Klahr are the reason you will never see uniforms in this school district.

Rebuttal to Right on the Money

Submitted by klahr123 on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 11:23am.

You are WRONG on the research; the only SUBSTANTIVE research has been done by Dr. David Brunsma, now at the U of Mo. at Columbia and his associates; contra the ANECDOTES (the only other "research"), he found that uniforms actually slightly LOWER discipline & academics.
Again, the fallacy of my opponents on this issue is that they think I am defending selfish, immature, bullies;l rather I am defending the GOOD GUYS---the future leaders of America who THINK FOR THEMSELVES; our progress was not made by conformists---but people like Edison, Salk & Einstein; do you think THEY should have been forced to wear uniforms??
When I talk about iconoclasts, these are again the "good kids"---not troublemakers. They are ENTITLED under our Constitution to express views in school---not just afterwards. OF COURSE, a written thesis is more important than a shirt logo---but these kids do BOTH; none of my clients think they solve the world's problems by just wearing a shirt logo or putting a bumper sticker on their car or bike. But they are limited in their finances; unlike rich adults, they cannot afford billboards and TV time to express opinions to others; the tee shirt is the 20th & 21st century way wherein THAT is done in this country---and everywhere else. IF (key word) such distracts from the learning of other kids, it CAN be banned---but my critics set a much lower standard---and one that is flatly illegal.
Other school districts have had to pay HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in damages and attorney fees for denying parents & kids these rights; an Ark. school is being sued right now for denying kids the right to wear armbands protrsting the school uni policy. Do you really want your TAX money spent that way when there is NO indication that student sapeech is disrupting the learning process??? The paper's poll shows most do NOT!!

You poor lost fellow....

Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 2:42pm.

Here are YOUR words:
\\\"IF (key word) such distracts from the learning of other kids, it CAN be banned---but my critics set a much lower standard---and one that is flatly illegal.\\\"

The fact that you and your \\\'critics\\\' cannot agree on what is or is NOT disruptive makes my whole point (re-read my first post). I am sure the mother who allowed her daughter to wear the shirt of blacks picking cotton was not at all offended by the shirt..... I am equally sure it was disruptive to others.

You my lost friend are very wrong on the research. Don\\\'t trust me, trust the national school board:

http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=33689&CID=485

Of course the best way is through your own research, like I did, to receive my Masters Degree in School Improvement.

I would suggest you at least google the topic and read a bit more for yourself since you can find millions of articles that are pro and a few thousand that are con.

Regardless, you view iconoclasts as the \\\'saviors of the world\\\' (a classic liberal view - bet you dodged Nam too huh?) where as I view them as immature and irrational emotive thinkers who will hopefully outgrow their rebellion (Classic Conservative view- I spent 6 years in the Air Force).

Somehow I don\\\'t think Edison, Salk or Einstein would have had a tee shirt that said \\\"Lincoln Sucks\\\", or \\\"Lincoln lied - slaves died\\\" ... nor will they be remembered for what the wore.

I\\\'ll leave it there and let the people decide. Remember - if dress codes weren\\\'t a problem - we wouldn\\\'t be having this discussion.

As for my tax money - I am a STRONG supporter of \\\'loser pays\\\' so when frivolous lawsuits are filed by ambulance chasing liberal activist (iconoclast) lawyers, they can pay when they lose. Problem now is even though you lose 90+ per cent of those cases, you only have to win one to hit the jackpot.

Uniforms---Loser WILL Pay---You taxpayers

Submitted by klahr123 on Sat, 10/21/2006 - 12:34am.

In Arkansas, a school board will be paying BIG because of attitudes like Right on the Money. I AGREE with loser pays---and in this case , you-all minority people (because a plurality in the Poll supports MY view) will be paying taxes for years if you really stop student political protests. An Ark school banned armbands worn as protest of their uni policy---a fed judge issjued a TRO--putting the kids back in school--and based on other cases, when the case comes to trial, the school will lose and owe MILLIONS of dollars. You see, whether you-all like it or not, KIDS ARE entirtled to free speech in schools---subject to the many restrictions I discussed.
In 99 pct of these cases, the school has NO evidence of disruption; it is an EXCUSE to deny kids the right to express opinions in school---not a close issue where there is really anything even CLOSE to disruption. As for the term "offensive," we are NOT talking about vulgarity but only trying to ban opinions just because SOME kids don't agree; that is the rule in IRAQ & CHINA---not the U.S. It appears that many of you (whites AND blacks) want to go back to the Southern "tradition" of denying people rights and fighting the central gov't. GOOD LUCK---you lost in the 1860's and the 1960's---do you think you will do any better in 2006? I am a believer in civil liberties & civil rights---but otherwise I am a conservative. Indeed on STUDENT CLOTHING, I am VERY conservative---I am just advocating for clothing worn 50 yrs ago when Ike was President (tee shirts & levis); it is the pro-uni preople who are radicals---wanting to dress KIDS like mini-adults working in an office.
Your example of a "Lincoln Sucks" shirt is ILLEGAL under the Fraser case; I do NOT defend that; but again, 99 pct of logo shirts are acceptable; those that are not can be ordered changed or turned inside out; we cannot deny ALL people freedom of speech just because it causes MINOR problems for school administrators. You say kids can express opinions out of school; YES---but in 1970, the Sup Ct said they can ALSO express opinions IN school, subject to the restrictions I stated.

The iconoclastsa I represent are NOT rebels in most cases; indeed, many want to express conservative sentiments like anti-Gay Bible verses and pro-life shirts as well as Southern Thunder pride shirts.
Again, you have a RIGHT to disagree with me---but I am upset that ALL my critics are putting me in a "bleeding-heart" liberal super-permissive "free dress" bag. I do NOT believe in that. Believe it or not, there ARE a majority of RESPONSIBLE PARENTS who send their kids to school in APROPRIATE clothing; why don't you-all critics of m ine SPEAK up for THEM??? Or is parental rights another "liberal/permissive" idea down there?????

Not only have I NEVER filed ANY frivolous suits, I have devoted thousands of hours to defending kids & parents on this issue without making ONE NICKEL. How DARE you accuse me of pushing this issue for financial profit. I believe in the 1st Amendment for all citizens. My critics don't; that is their privilege, but the "silent majority" or at least plurality agree w/ ME per the latest returns on the Citizen poll.
/gpk/Phoenix

Money well spent

Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Sat, 10/21/2006 - 12:18pm.

No one ever said it would be the responsibility of the tax pyer (but you) to buy iniforms; however, even if it is, it would be money well spent. Again - the fact that we cannot agree on what is offensive and acceptable is the very reason why we need uniforms. You may actually want to read all of those articles telling you that you are WRONG. You may want to combine those options in you beloved poll that include changing the status quo to get a real picture of how those who responded feels. realize that that is not a cross section representitive of the community, just a cross section of those who blog.

Well Put

Submitted by birdman on Wed, 10/18/2006 - 9:51pm.

Very well put. There is no room in the schools for these issues. When I was in school there were strict dress codes. It prevented exactly these issues from arising. As for the parents that want "individuality" for their kids, well, too bad. School is there for learning. Kids don't need the distractions these t-shirts lead to.
Oh, the Confederate Flag is Racist! Make no mistake. It is representative of the most divisive 4 years of our history where brother killed brother. Since then it is the symbol of hatred and racism. It is the same as claiming the Swastika as the "historic" emblem of Germany. It represents the most horrid and hateful time in German history and is still used today to promote hatred. These symbols have no business in our schools.

Search the Archives

Navigation

Contact Information

T-shirt controversy misses point of school

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options