Straight Pride T-shirt Controversy

[Ranger2]

Link

So last week at St. Charles North High School a student raised controversy over his shirt which said "Straight Pride" and had a Bible verse on the back saying that "If a man lies with a man as he would a woman he should be punished," or something among those lines. The wearer was told by a teacher to take off the T-shirt, because it could be considered offensive, and this was during an anti-bullying week.

I think that the student should be allowed to wear the Straight Pride T-Shirt as long as the Bible verse condemning homosexuals is not on the back. Someone wearing a Gay Pride shirt would be seen as "someone expressing his beliefs." A Straight Pride shirt should be considered the same thing, except I can see where the Bible verse saying that gays should be killed causes problems.

What do you think?

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

This is where the concept of 'Gay Rights' crosses over into the concept of 'Straight Rights' is it.

People are fucking idiots for even interrelating the two. He should be able to wear the tshirt, with the bible verse if he wants to state his beliefs.

[AntiHero]

I think its bullshit shit he got in trouble, and then at the same time its not. Honestly the whole "Straight Pride" and the bible verse thing I'm fine with its the same thing as a gay person wearing a "Gay Pride" shirt. However the fact that he did this on "Anti-Bully Week" is too big of a coincidence for me.

[aviewaskewed]

I have two reasons why I don't really see the student in question being on firm ground to object:

1. It is one thing to have a shirt that says "Straight Rights" quite another to have a shirt that says that and then has something that has been used as inflammatory against homosexuals for centuries. This is one of those things where I wonder if anybody would have even batted an eye if this were a situation that was about blacks, or hispanics, or maybe Jews. It still seems to me that it's still very much "acceptable" to be homophobic. But really, not the best reason why this isn't a gigantic cause for concern. Number 2 is:

2. A public school can and MUST reserve and have the right to act upon any situation they deem to be inappropriate or inconsistent with the learning process. They have to maintain an environment consistent with getting the kids into class, learning the material, and not pulling or doing anything that will get the school into shit with parents.

This is why school's have dress codes and such in the first place. It's like going to a job and the job says to you "these are the things we do and don't want you to wear while you're here". When you're on the street, you're responsible for you and can wear what you want. When you're in school, or on a job, you're on somebody else's time and you're subject to their rules.

[Warforger]

Oh please, if someone went in with a shirt saying "white pride" and with the back having quotes about how white people are best no one would react any differently.

[Bolo]

Looking at the matter from a purely judicial perspective, Tinker v. Des Moines would suggest that the school has little ground to stand on with regards to quashing the promotion of student ideas that are passive and do not directly incite violence or invoke "fighting words," such as the black Vietnam War protest armbands in that case, or the t shirt in this one, regardless of the school's disagreement with the message carried, because such actions by the public school constitute viewpoint discrimination. However, the more recent Morse v. Frederick ('Bong Hits 4 Jesus') decision calls into question the immutability of student speech, especially when it regards the promotion of ideas that may harm the health and wellness of the school community. While I think it could be argued that the message on the back of the shirt is discriminatory, and I myself disagree heartily with it, I have to say that I think if the matter were ever brought to court, I doubt the school would be able to make the argument effective enough to convince the conservative Roberts Court that citing a bible verse constitutes hatred and abuse of homosexuals.

[Powerage]

At 11/15/10 06:36 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Link

So last week at St. Charles North High School a student raised controversy over his shirt which said "Straight Pride" and had a Bible verse on the back saying that "If a man lies with a man as he would a woman he should be punished," or something among those lines. The wearer was told by a teacher to take off the T-shirt, because it could be considered offensive, and this was during an anti-bullying week.

I think that the student should be allowed to wear the Straight Pride T-Shirt as long as the Bible verse condemning homosexuals is not on the back. Someone wearing a Gay Pride shirt would be seen as "someone expressing his beliefs." A Straight Pride shirt should be considered the same thing, except I can see where the Bible verse saying that gays should be killed causes problems.

What do you think?

well, we can see that with the bible verses on the shirt advocating that homosexuals be put to death along with the "straight pride" on their shirts and the fact that it is "anti-bully week," i'd say yes, they were trying to intimidate people and cause problems, and it is the schools job to maintain a safe environment at the school, and that the school acted appropriately.

here's something to think about though (and this gets into some background issues regarding this case): what, exactly, is the motivation for wearing a 'Straight Pride' T-shirt or expressing "Straight Pride" in general?

first, the term "gay pride," the best way to describe this term would be "gay, and not ashamed." the default condition of straight people is to not be ashamed of being straight, while with gay people, the default condition IS to be ashamed of their sexuality, as homosexuality, in the recent past (and some still hold this belief today) was very much frowned upon. it was even classified as a mental disorder until the early 1970s, and there were laws against sexual behavior between homosexuals in several states until 2003 when Lawrence v Texas was handed down, and not to mention the violence and bullying directed against gays and lesbians.

with all that in mind, when someone says "gay pride," they're basically saying "we're here, we're not ashamed of who we are, deal with it." they basically just want to be accepted by the rest of society. gay pride is basically a reaction to the negative stigma attached to homosexuals.

so, are the terms "straight pride" and "gay pride" two sides of the same coin? well, we need to ask ourselves these questions: have straight people been systemically targeted for harassment because of their sexuality? when was the last time you heard about somebody being tied up and beaten because he's straight? i've already pointed out earlier in my post that the default condition for straight people is to not be ashamed for being straight. heterosexuality is not seen as shameful, while homosexuality, for a long time( though this is changing, at least in Western Countries), is seen as shameful. plus, straight people make up the majority of the population.

from the evidence i see here, i conclude that, since straight people never have to worry about being targeted for harassment because of their sexual preferences, while gay people are being targeted because of their preferences, and that heterosexuality does not have that shameful stigma attached to it unlike homosexuality does , "straight pride" is not equivalent to "gay pride."

so then, what, exactly, is the point of expressing pride in being straight? and why should i think the notion of "straight pride" is not absolutely ridiculous?

[Camarohusky]

At 11/15/10 09:10 PM, Bolo wrote: However, the more recent Morse v. Frederick ('Bong Hits 4 Jesus') decision calls into question the immutability of student speech, especially when it regards the promotion of ideas that may harm the health and wellness of the school community.

Let's examine the text of the case:
"The special characteristics of the school environment and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse--reflected in the policies of Congress and myriad school boards--allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting illegal drug use. Although Tinker warns that schools may not prohibit student speech because of undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance or a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint, the particular concern to prevent student drug abuse extends well beyond an abstract desire to avoid controversy."

If this was on during any week, there would be a First Amednment argument. However, in light of the recent spate of anti-gay bullying, wearing a shirt that is so overtly discriminatory and pointed toward homosecxuals during "Anti-Bullying Week", no doubt goes beyond a mere desire to avoid controversy. It thus does not fall under the First Amendment as it applies to schools.

[therealsylvos]

This is a tough case. My extreme distaste for limiting free speech in anyway, but I have to admit that in this case in makes sense.

My reason is basically that school isn't like any other situation. Its kind of like prison, in that you need to be there. If you don't want to see the Klan goosestepping through the park, you can leave the park. But School is fundamentally different and special considerations need to be taken into account.

[orangebomb]

Even though I have no problem with gay marriage myself, the kid in question has the right to wear the shirt with whatever his beliefs are. The issue with this is the Bible quote that says that homosexuals should be stoned to death, which would cross into hate/threat speech, because of the obvious discrimination and targeting of a certain group of people because of sexuality.

This is really a tricky situation, because the kid can wear that shirt, and if he doesn't do anything to harm gays, then it would fall under freedom of speech IMO. But at the same time, in a school setting, anything clothing that is considered a dangerous or threating to a person or a group should be removed because of the potential of violence.

[Imperator]

I've always been a bigger fan of "fire with fire".

I say let the man wear his shirt.

But you show up the next day with s shirt that says "Atheists know more than Christians about Christianity".
On the back is the citation to the Pew study.

What's good for the goose....

[Camarohusky]

This shirt is NOT the context the people who claim that it is free speech are thinking it is. This isn't anything like "Gay Pride"

"Gay Pride" is simply an affirmation that one is proud of their status.

"Straight Pride" is not a likewise affirmation about being straight. It is a direct response meant to demean and debase the idea that it is OK for gays to be proud of themselves. There is NO situation AT ALL where this would be OK in school. A shirt that says "Straight Pride" is intetionally offensive and meant to incite hatred and reasonably could incite violence. Free Speech is already heavily limited in schools, because schools have a higher purpose, and that is to provide a safe environment to educate ALL. Shirts that intend to incite violence interfere with this purpose and are thus not protected by the 1st Amendment.

If you are looking for a borderline situation, talk about the kids who fly American Flags on Cinco De Mayo. This is a case where the content in question does not inherently cause problems.

[Light]

At 11/15/10 06:36 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Link


I think that the student should be allowed to wear the Straight Pride T-Shirt as long as the Bible verse condemning homosexuals is not on the back. Someone wearing a Gay Pride shirt would be seen as "someone expressing his beliefs." A Straight Pride shirt should be considered the same thing, except I can see where the Bible verse saying that gays should be killed causes problems.

What do you think?

He should be allowed to wear the shirt and express his beliefs...It's not like he's actually breaking any rules or violating any laws by wearing the shirt. While I have nothing against gays and I don't even consider myself to be a Christian anymore, I still feel that the boy has a right express his beliefs. Political correctness has gone too far these days.

I've never really thought that one should have pride in one's sexuality, no matter if it is gay, straight, or bisexual.

[poxpower]

Ok so let me get this straight.

The book where the quote comes from is PERFECTLY FINE and should be admired and passed on to kids, but the quote on a t-shirt is horrible and incites violence?

I don't think you can have both my friends. Either you allow both the bible and the shirt or you ban both.

[gumOnShoe]

That isn't straight pride. Strait pride would be "I'm proud that I have sex with the opposite sex!"

What he said is, "If you have a particular kind of sex, you'll be punished."

That isn't straight pride. That's expressing a bigoted view about someone else's lifestyle. Its like trying to claim that making blond jokes is a form of brunette pride, when it clearly isn't.

The gay community celebrates what they are. They don't enforce their views on others.

The teacher was right to do what she/he did.

[morefngdbs]

I remember a local University 'male' fraternity here in Halifax had T shirts made that said
" Never trust anyone who can bleed for 7 days & not die !"
It hit the local papers, they were threatened with sanctions by the University if they didn't destroy the T shirts & get back as many as they could. Plus they were banned on University grounds.

I thought it was funny (yeah , I know sick fuck)
But it really offended some people.

Remember Schools are institutions put in place to teach you how & what to think...they aren't there to let you develope ideas & express yourself in any way you see fit.
So save your T shirt for when you're not on their property ,& then wear it .

My T shirt that says "If Jesus comes back, We'll just kill him again" probably wouldn't be welcomed by most religions, at their events or at their churches...but that doesn't stop me from wearing it in public.

[SohlTofang]

School is the first version of prison children see.

Rights are irrelevant, controversy is supreme.

[Ericho]

He should probably not be allowed to wear it, because that is extremely offensive. When people wear gay pride shirts, they do not have anything that demeans straight people so we should do the same for them. This is also an anti-bullying week, so it is just stupid. I guess if he wants to wear the shirt without that thing on the back, that would be okay, but he should probably talk it over with the LBGT community.

[OddlyPoetic]

At 11/15/10 08:30 PM, Warforger wrote: Oh please, if someone went in with a shirt saying "white pride" and with the back having quotes about how white people are best no one would react any differently.

They should.

The idea of"Straight Rights" doesn't make much sense anyway. When was the last time someone prosecuted someone based on heterosexually?

[Bolo]

At 11/15/10 11:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If this was on during any week, there would be a First Amednment argument. However, in light of the recent spate of anti-gay bullying, wearing a shirt that is so overtly discriminatory and pointed toward homosecxuals during "Anti-Bullying Week", no doubt goes beyond a mere desire to avoid controversy. It thus does not fall under the First Amendment as it applies to schools.

Well, obviously this is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not us. While I would agree with you that banning the shirts is a legitimate attempt to stymie both discrimination and the very real threat of ostracization or physical reprisal against gay students, having read many first amendment cases verbatim from the Supreme Court (LexisNexis is a good tool for anyone interested in reading these lengthy opinions), I have to say that the Court trends towards requiring explicit evidence that violence or illegal activities are imminent, or active and disruptive promotion of ideas, that detract from the school environment. It's true that the Morse decision erodes the Tinker precedent. But if this case were ever to come to court, it would definitely be seen as analogous to Tinker - after all this concerns a symbol merely worn and not actively promoted as in Morse. The court very rarely overturns so entirely its previous established conventions, and in order to rule in favor of the school, they would have to fully overturn Tinker. Were that to happen it would cause a veritable shitstorm.

I dislike homophobes as much as the next sane person. But in light of what the court would have to do to rule in favor of the school, and in light of the fact that no active disruption of the school technically occurred as a result of wearing the shirt, I really can't see it being ruled in any way other than in the student's favor, sadly. Maybe if the circumstances were different, or if the student had actively broadcast his beliefs the story would be different.

[Gario]

Oh, a straight pride shirt, eh?

I think it would've been fine except for the whole 'PUT ALL GAYS TO DEATH!' line in there (stop creating euphemisms, people - that's what the shirt said, if they're directly quoting Leviticus). I think the schools were trying to protect the idiot students that wore that shirt by restricting it - kids don't know any better, at that age.

[Camarohusky]

I put forth the idea that the simple "Straight Pride" on the kid's shirt is enough to trigger the school's responsibility to abridge the kid's speedch in order to protect the students.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/17/10 01:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I put forth the idea that the simple "Straight Pride" on the kid's shirt is enough to trigger the school's responsibility to abridge the kid's speedch in order to protect the students.

Would you agree that if it was a shirt simply saying "Gay Pride" we apply the same ruling?

I really feel I can't properly reply to you unless I'm clear on that point.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/17/10 02:26 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Would you agree that if it was a shirt simply saying "Gay Pride" we apply the same ruling?

Absolutely not. The two terms are not two sides of the same coin. Like I mentioned above "Straight Pride" is not an affirmation that one is happy with who they are regardless of social pressure. "Straight Pride" is meant as a reaction to the "Gay Pride" shirts, but has a wholly different meaning. It is meant to mock homosexuality. It's goal is not to affirm one's happines with being who they are. While the specific words mean something fairly harmless, the manner through which they have been used (as evidenced again by the quote on the back of the shirt) show that this is clearly a slogan that overtly and otuward promotes discrimination and animosity toward homosexuals. "What?! How can these simple words be bad?" you say? Well, just ask the Jews and Italians how "Circle" (in Hebrew I think) and "Without Papers" have become extremely offensive comments meant only to discriminate and foment anger amongst those people.

If the kids shirt said something along the lines of "I'm straight, and I am happy with who I am" the shirt would be allowed. This would be the other side of the "Gay Pride" coin. However, as it was on the kids shirt, as shaped by its usage in American society, became hateful speech which has no place in schools.

I really feel I can't properly reply to you unless I'm clear on that point.

I mentioned this above, but not as in depth as I did right here.

[Ericho]

At 11/16/10 03:36 AM, poxpower wrote: I don't think you can have both my friends. Either you allow both the bible and the shirt or you ban both.

To the contrary, banning a religous book violates the Constiution which grants us freedom of religion, specifically the First Amendment. If you violate the Constitution, you can go to jail for it.

[psycho-squirrel]

Double standards.

Black Pride: Ok
Asian Pride: Ok
Mexican Pride: Ok
Gay Pride: Ok
White Pride: NOT OK
Straight Pride: NOT OK

[LardLord]

At 11/17/10 11:37 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: Black Pride: Ok
Asian Pride: Ok
Mexican Pride: Ok
Gay Pride: Ok
White Pride: NOT OK
Straight Pride: NOT OK

Why be proud of something that nobody has ever challenged, that you've never had to fight for, and that has itself caused discrimination against minorities? It's not something to be proud of, it's something to accept and move on.

[Imperator]

To see how far this "tolerance" extends, I'd show up tomorrow with a pink shirt that says "Jesus was GAY".

Then of course I'd follow the "straight pride" guy around all day....just to piss em off.

[poxpower]

At 11/17/10 11:20 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/16/10 03:36 AM, poxpower wrote: I don't think you can have both my friends. Either you allow both the bible and the shirt or you ban both.

To the contrary, banning a religous book violates the Constiution which grants us freedom of religion, specifically the First Amendment. If you violate the Constitution, you can go to jail for it.

You JUST SAID he shouldn't be able to wear a t-shirt that has these religious writing on it.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/17/10 01:39 PM, LardLord wrote: Why be proud of something that nobody has ever challenged, that you've never had to fight for, and that has itself caused discrimination against minorities? It's not something to be proud of, it's something to accept and move on.

I think the problem here is as Cam pointed out, context. Especially when you consider terms like "White Pride" which has never been a benign movement in which discrimination was not the focal point of the idea. True other concepts mentioned on the list as "ok" have had elements of discrimination depending on the user (Black Pride or Power springs to mind) but in the end there ARE clear examples where people espoused it and meant nothing overtly discriminatory.

How anyone can argue THIS PARTICULAR SHIRT is anything but a clearly discriminatory and inflammatory provocation is beyond me. Not to mention people bring up "first amendment" but what they seem to be forgetting is the geographic context of where this inflammatory shirt is being worn. It's one thing when it's on the street, it's another when it's worn in a public building where individuals are forced to spend a certain amount of time together, in closed quarters, with the individuals running it tasked with guaranteeing basic safety.

Also I think it's a pretty lousy argument to say that if you won't allow someone to wear a Bible qoute in school you have to ban the book entire in general. The book is banned and unwelcome in schools for much the same reason the shirt is, that is enough.