ACLU of TN must have nothing better to do
Posted on April 4, 2007
Tennessean: ACLU comes out against school uniforms
The Tennessee arm of the American Civil Liberties Union voiced its opinion against school uniforms today, saying they would seriously infringe on student’s rights.
In a letter to the Board of Education, the group urged board members to vote against the policy because it bans most forms of student expression.
Wrong. It does not infringe on “students’ rights” if the uniform policy applies equally to all students.
“Bans most forms of student expression?” Yeah, OK. Are you telling that if kids have to wear white polo shirts and khakis, they’d suddenly be rendered mute and crippled by arthritis?
They need to find these people some real work.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News
Trackback URL
Comments
17 Responses to “ACLU of TN must have nothing better to do”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
The ACLU is suing the little town that I live in for ticketing anti-war
protestors. Should be fun.
http://moralauthority.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/honk-if-youre-an-idiot/
Hitler had all the little children wear uniforms - Nothing wrong with that, right?
Why should my child be forced to wear what you, or the government, or anyone else wants them to wear? In a private school - where you go voluntarily and abide by an agreed to set of rules - sure… but the constitution - that paper that gives you the right to worship whatever God you want without the government telling you who / wear / when / or what to wear while you worship - also gives every citizen the right to wear whatever they wish to wear.
To force children to look and act the same as every other child is wrong - and harmful. It creates the mentality that Hitler (and most other fascist / dictators) desire; that of obedience and conformity.
Oh and the argument that this rule does not discriminate against students because it applies to all students - is a logical fallacy.
Thats much like saying - “Slavery was okay because we treated all black people equally…”
It disturbs me that this site would fight against an organization (The ACLU) which is dedicated to protecting each individuals rights. I’m not a member of the ACLU - and I don’t always agree with every legal battle they engage in. (For example several years ago I remember they supported the KKK in a bid to be allowed to use public television to express their views) I at least understood their position and reasoning - even if I didn’t agree with it.
Do you really want the government to tell you how to dress your children? - to fail them, or not allow them to be educated unless you jump through every hoop they demand? Is that the type of government you want - because it sure doesn’t sound like the America I want.
My granddaughter goes to a charter school which requires
uniforms. The education is far superior to any public school.
Without going into detail I can only say that the individuals
who posted comments 2 and 3 are complete idiots. Yes I know
I will get some negative BS back but I only hope the ACLU
loses another for one for the sake of the children.
Hi - I’m the “idiot” who wrote post #2 and #3 - and how exactly do the school uniforms at your granddaughter’s charter school help her education?
My children, home-schooled, are three and four years ahead of their friends in public school. My 15 year old daughter will be attending college next semester - she studies in her pajama’s most days…. however, pajamas are not the reason she is excelling in school.
Your argument is a logical fallacy.
As is referring to someone you don’t personally know as an “idiot”. I can only hope that’s not how you teach your grandkids to argue.
Oh, and please go into detail about how I am an idiot.
The fact is that authoritarian governments often (almost always to my knowledge) require children to dress alike - and for a reason. It teaches children to be part of a collective rather than be individuals. The communist governments that this site portrays as evil all require exactly what you are advocating.
In “team” sports… you wear a uniform because you have given up being an individual (per se) and are now part of something else. Now - I have no problem with children who elect to go into football - or the boy scouts - whatever… and choose to wear a uniform. But to force a child to wear a uniform is not (in my opinion) the American way. Our country was founded on INDIVIDUAL freedoms.
The ACLU (for better or for worse) defends those personal freedoms.
I honestly didn’t come here to troll and cause problems - but I would very much like to debate why you folks believe that someone who defends your freedoms would be worthy of your ire.
If you have an explanation of how giving up the right of personal fashion is producing better students, or how teaching our children that conformity is a good personal trait - I would love to hear it and debate it. If all you have is calling me names - then I think my argument is already settled.
“Hitler had all the little children wear uniforms - Nothing wrong with that, right?”
What you did here Larry was pre-emptively delegitimize ANYTHING else you had to say that may have been of value.
So you have no other argument other than you didn’t like the way I pointed out that fascists require conformity. They do - that is a fact, I am sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable opening with that statement and I apologize if that offended you - but if you can’t debate the subject past that - I think it shows you have no legitimate argument.
My opening statement was meant to be provocative - I apologize if it offended you. Most people in America don’t normally side with dictators and fascists.
Again, I am sorry if that my statement offended you. However, it was, and is, a fact that fascists (like Hitler) and other such authoritarian governments require conformity. It is also a fact that uniforms and such nonsense are forced upon children by these regimes.
That you dismiss the rest of the argument because you don’t like the comparison I drew - leads me to believe you have no counter argument.
My statement did not “delegitimize” my question. perhaps, at most, it gave you an excuse not to honestly address the issue. (Which, I think, perhaps you probably didn’t need much of an excuse to begin with.)
If the best you can argue for school uniforms is that you don’t like the way I got my point across - then you don’t have a very rational argument.
If you have an explanation of how giving up the right of personal fashion is producing better students, or how teaching our children that conformity is a good personal trait - then, again, I would love to hear it and debate it. If all you have is finding a reason not to debate the issue - then I have to think that you probably WANT a fascist/authoritarian government that requires people to dress and think alike. Which maybe you do - I don’t know - which is why I wanted to discuss this subject.
Is that really your perspective?
To be honest I can’t image that to be the case. It seems very “un-American” to me. Which, I guess is why when I found this website - I was a bit confused. I was of the impression that the ACLU fought for personal freedoms - and I understand that can be unpopular and certainly open for debate - but I thought in general a group that fought for personal freedoms was a good thing.
Why should students be required to dress alike - like they are required to do in Communist / Muslim / Authoritarian countries?
Like I asked - is that really the America you want?
It looks as though my previous (# 2,#3 and #5) comments have been removed.
Why?
I have not cursed or been rude in any way. Are your beliefs so weak that they can’t stand up to a simple disagreement?
_____________________________
Your comments were caught in the ’spam’ filter not deleted!
Lobo
Larry–
You over-think.
I said nothing in favor of nor against school uniforms.
What I said was that school uniforms do not violate students’ constitutional rights. Not really much to dispute.
All you could come up with is that facsists don’t appreciate fashion, or should I refer to your invented constitutional principle of “right to fashion”…and base an entire tirade on that idea. I guess UPS and the US Postal Service are competing facsistic vanguards of the coming Mailocracy. You know, the whole conformity of uniforms = Nazism thing you are trying to sell. Talk about “logical fallacy.”
Are you sure that it’s me who has no argument? You certainly have a lot of argument, but trouble making a point.
The NAZI reference out of the gate does call anything else you have to say into question. If one has trouble distinguishing between a genocidal regime that was reponsible for the deaths not only of the six million or so it killed all on its own, but every one of the deaths it caused by starting a world war and a school making a decision to eliminate all the anti-educationally distracting butt-cleavage jeans and potential gang garb, then it’s hard to believe that you can craft a clear thought.
Glib - thank you for reposting my comments. I am sorry I assumed my posts were being deleted - I assumed as much because only my posts disappeared, forgive my paranoia.
You said, [i]“What I said was that school uniforms do not violate students’ constitutional rights. Not really much to dispute.”[/i]
I disagree. The first amendment contains the right to express ourselves as we see fit. This clearly includes the right to dress as we choose. (As with all rights there are limitaions to that freedom - but I don’t think anyone here would disagree that such a freedom exists (and should exist.)
So, I did not invent the “right to fashion” as you call it - the right to wear clothing appropriate to your own beliefs and desires is built into our civil liberties. Do you really wish to have a government that dictates to people what they should wear and when?
You argue another fallacy by saying that UPS and the US Postal Service fall under the same argument as school uniforms. Both of those institutions are voluntary to join. School is compulsory.
As for a NAZI regime forcing obedience, allegiance and conformity - I certainly recognize that there is a difference between Hitler’s followers and our school system.
I suppose I am arguing to KEEP those differences. One large component of Hitler’s propaganda machine was teaching children to become conformists.
Self-expression is an American right. That expression can be made via T-shirts, or butt-cleavage jeans or potential “gang” garb - and people should have the right to express themselves.
Of course it is easier to rule (in a government or a school) if everyone marches in a straight line, wears the same uniform, and is forced into blind obedience of authority and unquestioning conformity. My point was, and is, that is why communist regimes, and NAZI’s, and just about every other dictator / authoritarian government requires that children wear uniforms and recite “pledges” and such in school.
Do you believe in an authoritarian government which requires citizens to undergo such training?
See, I have a lot of trouble thinking that folks like you really want such a government. I think we want the same thing from our government - the freedom to live our lives as we choose.
Towards the end of your post you make the argument that some fashion is disruptive to education. I disagree.
I have never read any evidence that what children wear, helps (or hurts) their education.
You claimed I had argued but failed to make my point. I think I made my point clearly - taking away a persons freedom to dress as they choose - doesn’t help children learn. I could be wrong, do you have any evidence that school uniforms vastly improve education?
I also believe I made my point that NAZI’s and other authoritarian governments (especially Muslim religious nuts)require their students to conform via uniforms and chanting “pledges” to the government or to their God - you see, I like the ACLU on this one…. because I don’t want America to be like them.
Do you disagree?
The ACLU fights for personal rights and freedoms. That is their stated goal. So, I don’t consider the fight a “waste of time” as you implied in your opening post. This issue is clearly a matter of first amendment rights - your argument of ‘no constitutional amendment regarding fashion’ not withstanding. What a person wears can certainly be considered a statement of who they are and what they believe.
Let’s look at the innocent description of what children are required to wear - a “white polo shirts and khakis”. If I want my daughters to only wear skirts - ala the belief of the Amish… does my daughter have to wear pants? What if I am a radical Vegan - and I don’t want my child to dress in polyester?
Personally - my belief system - is that my children should refuse to dress in uniforms. My belief as a parent requires that I stand up against authoritarian systems and do not wish to allow the government to force my children into becoming conformists. Which, is as legitimate a “religion” as any other.
Hmmmm. I’ve been deleted again - Apparently Glib I’m in some sort of spam filter. Thank you for being gracious enough to restore me.
This link: http://www.members.tripod.com/rockqu/uniform.htm
is a scientific study on school uniforms done by Notre Dame University. It concludes that uniforms do not really have much of an effect on education / attendance / behavioral problems.
OK Larry, we’re getting there. Had you posted your last comment first, I think I would have been able to take you more seriously…although your need to compare non-like things (regimes responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people and the desire for schools to implement school uniforms) makes me shake my head.
A couple points:
1) Attending public school is not “compulsory.” You yourself have a home-schooled child as you mention above and have discussed private schools as well, so I don’t know how you would have come to write such a thing.
2) This is a LOCAL school. You are favoring the ACLU’s attempt through a FEDERAL court to dictate policy to a LOCAL entity. Isn’t it far more totalitarian for a FEDERAL entity to wrest decision-making authority from a LOCAL entity? If we are going to talk Commie authoritarianism, I can’t think of a better example than what you are preaching brohter!
3) “Studies,” yes, “studies.” You can find a “study” to support just about anything. Why not just stand on principle instead of looking to the Ivory Tower? I’m not saying there is never a place for “studies,” but I fear in America that “studies” and “experts” have replaced critical thought and common sense.
Bottom line Larry — school uniforms are not a threat to the Republic. Standards of dress do not take away a student’s right to think for herself or to express her convictions. The bigger problem in today’s schools is that Christian and conservative students are being sytematically shut down while schools enforce a thought monopoly of Leftist social experimentation. Do you support or oppose the right of a student to express a traditional view of homosexual behavior on days where the school sanctions days that promote homosexual behavior?
I need to ask a general question. Would you allow your daughter to wear clothes that reduce her to a sexual object (like the afore-mentioned butt-cleavage jeans and bear-all tank tops)?
Is is quite simple, clothing that has negative wording and
pictures takes the attention of children away from learning
what they need to know. Yes, home schooling if the parents
have the capability to teach is even much more effective than
public schools. But Larry Martin is still an idiot to think
that uniforms do not help the education effort.
Glib, thanks for your reply.
I apologize again that we started off “bumpy” - but I think this is developing into a nice conversation in spite of my rough introduction.
You said - “although your need to compare non-like things (regimes responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people and the desire for schools to implement school uniforms) “makes me shake my head.”
I understand your skepticism but the fact remains that authoritarian regimes - some of which may go on to be murderous as you mention (example; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many Muslim / extremist type regimes) do not exist in a vacuum. They are created and supported by masses who are EDUCATED to accept and believe extremist doctrines. These indoctrination processes require conformity such as wearing uniforms.
Without exception in my above list - these dictators put children into uniforms at a young age. I don’t believe that is a coincidence - and neither do most sociologists.
“1) Attending public school is not “compulsory.†You yourself have a home-schooled child as you mention above and have discussed private schools as well, so I don’t know how you would have come to write such a thing.”
No - Glib - school is compulsory. You MUST send your child to school - that is federal law. Now, you can send your child to a private school (which is not available to all children due to financial restraints) or you can home-school your children (which is not available to all children due to financial restraints) or - failing those options - you MUST send them to public school. So school is compulsory by definition.
Therefore - you are asking for legislation that REQUIRES children of school age to dress in a uniform - unless their parents can afford to send children elsewhere.
“2) This is a LOCAL school. You are favoring the ACLU’s attempt through a FEDERAL court to dictate policy to a LOCAL entity.”
Our rights do not - and should not - end due to local legislation. Local laws must respect our civil rights.
“Isn’t it far more totalitarian for a FEDERAL entity to wrest decision-making authority from a LOCAL entity?”
Not if the laws favor EXPANDING or protecting individual freedom and rights. That would be the opposite of totalitarianism - again, pretty much by definition.
“If we are going to talk Commie authoritarianism, I can’t think of a better example than what you are preaching brohter!”
Commies LIMIT personal freedom. Totalitarian regimes LIMIT personal freedoms. Don’t you see that what you are advocating is a limit to personal freedoms?
Again, Glib - if the government tells me how to dress my child - that is a LIMIT to my freedom as a parent.
“3) “Studies,†yes, “studies.†You can find a “study†to support just about anything. Why not just stand on principle instead of looking to the Ivory Tower? I’m not saying there is never a place for “studies,†but I fear in America that “studies†and “experts†have replaced critical thought and common sense.”
Glib, my friend, your argument seems to be - ‘forget the facts and what the evidence shows - I have my PRINCIPLE!’
But your principle is to limit personal freedoms in favor of something that studies, yes studies have shown has no real impact on the quality of education. School uniforms do not improve test scores, behavioral issues, or attendance.
There are already federal limits on what children can wear - limits that prevent children from wearing shirts with obscenities, or show body parts, or advocate illegal activities… anything that can be disruptive in class is already against the law - anything past that and you are infringing on civil rights.
With those are already in place… and I certainly accept that there should be limits on any freedom including what people wear - there are no real reasons to further limit what people wear. Anything more than that and you are preaching conformity over personal freedom of choice.
“Bottom line Larry — school uniforms are not a threat to the Republic.”
A Threat? no - just a step in a bad direction for the republic.
“Standards of dress do not take away a student’s right to think for herself or to express her convictions.”
Of course they can, Glib. Okay - let’s suppose here. Suppose a school uniform code outlaws jewelry - do you want it to be ILLEGAL for your child to wear a cross? Lets say you’re Jewish - do you want your child sent home because they wore a yarmulke? France recently passed laws that limit such freedoms… not allowing Muslim children to wear their typical scarves. Scarves first - crosses next bud. That’s not the America I want - is that the America you want?
I want America more free - not less free.
“The bigger problem in today’s schools is that Christian and conservative students are being sytematically shut down while schools enforce a thought monopoly of Leftist social experimentation.”
So dressing in uniforms promotes a conservative Christian belief? I guess I didn’t follow that argument correctly - please elaborate. It is not a leftist social experimentation to allow children the freedom to dress themselves - it’s been going on for pretty much all of our American history that I am aware of. It is that guarantee of personal expression that differentiated us from the rest of the world - other governments might require our children to dress uniformly - but our government couldn’t.
Don’t you see a danger in giving the government the power over how to dress your children? I certainly do.
“Do you support or oppose the right of a student to express a traditional view of homosexual behavior on days where the school sanctions days that promote homosexual behavior?”
Absolutely!
Although I can pretty safely say that I don’t want public schools to “promote” any type of sexual behavior - period.
“I need to ask a general question. Would you allow your daughter to wear clothes that reduce her to a sexual object (like the afore-mentioned butt-cleavage jeans and bear-all tank tops)?”
I have two daughters 15, 14. Absolutely not - in answer to your question. However - that is the choice I make as a father in an authoritarian household under my command - okay - honestly I am in command only as long as my wife lets me command
But seriously - My children don’t dress like sluts. They can wear make-up as long as I don’t notice it. I am personally very conservative - However, I believe I have to allow every parent the right to make their own best decisions and choices regarding their children.
I don’t get to tell you that your child can’t dress in a dress because that isn’t what I like. I don’t get to tell you that your child can’t wear a cross or an armband - or a scarf. Those are your choices as a parent - those are your freedoms. On the same note - I don’t want you telling me what my children should or shouldn’t wear (again there are certainly limits to that freedom).
If you allow our government the power to decide what your child can or can’t wear - I promise you in a few years you won’t like what they start deciding - then you’ll actually WANT the ACLU to come to your rescue
Dethanial; there are already limits as to what children can wear - the fact is that disruptive clothing is already against the rules. What we are debating here is dressing everyone exactly alike. Maybe I am an “idiot” but so far the evidence strongly supports my position: Uniforms do not improve a child’s education. Can you find any sort of scientific study - that supports your position. If so then we have a legitimate debate over whether or not limiting our personal freedoms is worth the cost to our civil liberties. Until then all we have is a group of people who want the perceived safety and order of conformity and are willing to sacrifice their personal freedoms to get it.
As you may notice - I’m not willing to do that. Call me an “idiot” but I don’t like the trade-off.
Larry wrote a lot of nothing.
Dethanial,
Wow - what a rebuttal! I’m guessing you didn’t make the debate team in school. The lack of depth in your position is astounding!
You claim that uniforms help education - but offer no real evidence to support that claim.
Is that how you come to all of your decisions in life - you just believe it to be true and, forget whatever evidence there is to the contrary, if you think it’s true - then it is?
My point was - and is - the ACLU protects - at least in theory - individual freedoms and was right to write a letter opposing school uniforms.
In this case the right they were protecting was the freedom to dress your kids for school as you see fit.
Our freedoms may be inconvenient and messy at times, but the alternative is to allow a government to make choices for you - and that authoritarian / totalitarian mentality is the driving force behind communism, NAZI, and Theocracy driven countries - is that really the government that you want?
If so - you are welcome to it - I just don’t share your views.
But if you really don’t want the government thinking for you and chopping away at your rights one-by-one then you may want to stop siding with bureaucrats who want just a little more power to do their jobs better.
Of course it is easier to be a cop if you don’t have to respect peoples rights. Of course it is easier to govern if you can spy on people, of course it is easier to teach if you can force everyone into conformity - but that isn’t what our country was founded on.
Our country was founded on the principle that our rights were more important than the government having an “easy” job.
Uniforms - in study after study - have not been effective in improving behavior / education / attendance / slowing drug use or anything else. The first stories of “remarkable success” that came down the pike said that uniforms stopped violence and had all these great social effects - well it turns out those stories were bogus. The school system that reported those remarkable (well publicized) events also added millions of dollars to after-school programs / security / tutoring programs at the same time they implemented the uniforms.
The uniforms alone - did nothing.
So, call me an idiot - but at least I read the studies. Now you can encourage your school district to spend tax money on uniforms and defending lawsuits (Because I would certainly sue if my child were forced to go to a school which required a uniform) if that’s where you want your educational money to go - more power to you.
However, I, personally, think it is much better for the kids - if the school district puts tax money into after-school programs, tutoring, better teachers and better security. The evidence says that money is well spent.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me - but if all you can base your disagreements on is a dislike of the ACLU - and a mistaken belief that uniforms are some sort of magical cure-all for public education - then I’m not the person you should be calling an idiot.