I did a little research and discovered this kid would have been sent home immediately from Highlands. From the handbook:

 

"No writing or pictures are allowed on tops. Small logos (no larger than quarter size) are acceptable. Highlands Spirit Wear is permissible at any time."

 

CCH has rules about shirts as well. I remember a frosh football player getting detention because the allowable logo was 1/4" too long. It was measured. He got detention.

What if this kid was wearing a Repel the 2nd Amendment shirt with this logo.

 

 

I'll bet that the same teacher would have absolutely no issue or problem.

 

I would also bet that if a kid had worn this shirt to school most of you that are supporting the schools decision now would be against if this shirt had been banned and the student sent home or arrested.

We really don't know anything about the teacher, other than he/she questioned the shirt.

We really don't know anything about the teacher, other than he/she questioned the shirt.

Or how confrontational the student was, or what his disciplinary history is, etc.

I did a little research and discovered this kid would have been sent home immediately from Highlands. From the handbook:

 

"No writing or pictures are allowed on tops. Small logos (no larger than quarter size) are acceptable. Highlands Spirit Wear is permissible at any time."

 

From what I recall of Highlands policy, you are absolutely correct. Rather than have a very subjective and vague policy, thus placing students, teachers and administrators in the difficult position of interpretation, the Ft. Thomas School District has a very clear and bright line policy.

 

Unfortunately, the Logan school did not, which of course created the problem at hand.

 

Personally, had it been my kid, I would have hoped he would have complied with the teacher's instruction to turn it inside out, and I would have then addressed the situation the next day with administration. Then again, the teacher could have not made a big issue out of it that day; discussed the issue with administration; and if the administration wanted to ban pictures of guns on shirts, they could have revised the dress code so it clearly established that pictures of guns are not permissible in school. Dumb actions by all involved in my opinion.

 

You have to admit, that the Logan dress code is drafted very poorly and is very, very vague. It leaves a lot of room for very subjective decisions. If a shirt can be banned because it has a picture on it that might be offensive to one student in the school, the school is really treading on thin ice.

Or how confrontational the student was, or what his disciplinary history is, etc.

 

One report said he had no prior problems at the school.

Logan Co. is a different place.

 

Way more to this story than is out there.

From what I recall of Highlands policy, you are absolutely correct. Rather than have a very subjective and vague policy, thus placing students, teachers and administrators in the difficult position of interpretation, the Ft. Thomas School District has a very clear and bright line policy.

 

Unfortunately, the Logan school did not, which of course created the problem at hand.

 

Personally, had it been my kid, I would have hoped he would have complied with the teacher's instruction to turn it inside out, and I would have then addressed the situation the next day with administration. Then again, the teacher could have not made a big issue out of it that day; discussed the issue with administration; and if the administration wanted to ban pictures of guns on shirts, they could have revised the dress code so it clearly established that pictures of guns are not permissible in school. Dumb actions by all involved in my opinion.

 

You have to admit, that the Logan dress code is drafted very poorly and is very, very vague. It leaves a lot of room for very subjective decisions. If a shirt can be banned because it has a picture on it that might be offensive to one student in the school, the school is really treading on thin ice.

I agree with your post in its entirety.

 

If if common sense had been prevalent both before and after this incident, then the outcome may have been more like the ideals you suggest. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, "common sense ain't all that common".

I agree with your post in its entirety.

 

If if common sense had been prevalent both before and after this incident, then the outcome may have been more like the ideals you suggest. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, "common sense ain't all that common".

 

When Toots agrees with a post of mine, I know I'm on the right track.

What exactly is the difference between this thread and the kid with the mohawk? Is it that we like guns and not punk haircuts?

 

Both were an interpretation call, and in both cases the administrator decided that it was a disruption.

 

And for the record, I did know people who claimed their mohawks were a political message.

The difference is in the mohawk case it went against school policy because according to the article the hairdo caused a disturbance as the teachers in the classroom couldn’t get the attention of the students. The kid with the shirt went five classes and and had no problems. The teacher may have been the one that caused the distraction to begin with. Granted, the kid should have just complied and let his father take it up with the administration as LN said, but I'm not seeing why the teacher took issue with something that wasn't a violation of school policy.

Or how confrontational the student was, or what his disciplinary history is, etc.

According to what I've read and heard the kid never had any prior problems and the claim is the teacher was the one causing a disturbance by raising his voice. I'm waiting to see if there is more to this than what the videos and articles state, seems a bit much to arrest a kid for what we know so far, but we might not be getting the entire story yet. If we are, then the whole thing is absurd.

According to what I've read and heard the kid never had any prior problems and the claim is the teacher was the one causing a disturbance by raising his voice. I'm waiting to see if there is more to this than what the videos and articles state, seems a bit much to arrest a kid for what we know so far, but we might not be getting the entire story yet. If we are, then the whole thing is absurd.

What's absurd about disciplining a middle-school kid for disrespecting a teacher, a school administrator and a police officer? The real issue here is disrespect, not free speech. The kid's old man is part of the problem, too. First thing he does is hire a lawyer.

What's absurd about disciplining a middle-school kid for disrespecting a teacher, a school administrator and a police officer? The real issue here is disrespect, not free speech. The kid's old man is part of the problem, too. First thing he does is hire a lawyer.

 

What is wrong with standing up for what you believe and doesnt someone have to make a stand for rights.

 

But I do agree the kid and his dad could go at it another way. Plus I also feel the teacher should be reprimanded, not fired. I am sure if the kid wore a shirt with a X on a gun in support of gun control, the teacher wouldnt have said anything.

Report on Fox said he wore the shirt to school again yesterday, as did others in a show of support for him. I'd say he and his father are enjoying their 15 minutes. I agree with others that this resulted from the school not having a clear enough policy.

The teacher has also brought this on by acting the way he did. It could have been handled a lot different. Now allt eh bad PUP is the result of a teacher with an attitude of trying to push his agenda.