Sigh.
Send him to the re-education center…
I’ll stop flagging the unethical conduct of anti-gun hysterics during the Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck when they stop abusing kids and law-abiding citizens in their deranged determination to turn America into a gun-free zone through fear-mongering and intimidation. I’m genuinely sick of writing about this stuff, but not as sick as I am of the idiocy that produces it. Has any sane, prominent, respectable voice from the gun-regulation side registered strong objections to incidents like what happened in Logan? If so, I must have missed it. That’s illuminating, don’t you think?
Jared Marcum, an eighth-grader boy at Logan Middle School in Logan, W.Va., was suspended and arrested by police for wearing a pro-NRA T-shirt that depicted a firearm and the phrase “Protect your right” to class. He was charged with “obstruction and disturbing the education process.” It appears that his teacher asked him to remove his shirt, and he refused, prompting the arrest. Marcum was on solid ground, and his teacher was not. The school dress code reads in part:
“A student will not dress or groom in a manner that disrupts the educational process or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of others. A student will not dress in a manner that is distractive or indecent, to the extent that it interferes with the teaching and learning process, including wearing any apparel that displays or promotes any drug-, alcohol- or tobacco-related product that is prohibited in school buildings, on school grounds, in school-leased or owned vehicles, and at all school-affiliated functions.”
By no interpretation does the shirt’s message or graphics meet that description of any part of it. The disruption to the education process was 100% due to the teacher.
Allen Lardieri, the boy’s father, says he “will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again.” Let me know if I can help, Allen. This is misconduct by the teacher and the school, abuse of power by the police, and worst of all, political indoctrination by the school system. Treating support for the Second Amendment as if it were forbidden advocacy for illegal and prohibited substances sends an impermissible message to all students that they are to regard guns and gun ownership as dangerous, and such subject matter opinion-enforcement by the government is unconstitutional and wrong.
I doubt these and similar incidents are anomalies. To the contrary, I believe they indicate a pervasive ideological attitude in the public schools and the teaching profession. This combines with the rampant lack of professionalism and ethical standards in the field of education to create oppression of students and educational malpractice.
________________________________
Facts: Examiner
Graphic: Gossipy
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
But, Jack. Guns are scary! We shouldn’t let teachers be exposed to pictures of them, doncha know?
Don’t you find it unethical that a parent uses his son as a tool to promote their own personal agenda? It’s so obvious; guess a poor 13 year old thinks its cool.
Why don’t you write about THAT?
Well, let me count the reasons:
1. A school system abusing a child, exercising censorship, applying thought control and misusing law enforcement, which also abuses its power, is only about a million times more important than one parent influencing their kids attitudes, which is what parents do.
2. There is no reason to think this is “obvious.” The kid is in the 8th grade. My own son has completely separate political view from mine, and did by the time he was in Middle School, including on the topic of guns—he joined the Junior NRA at the same age as the suspended boy, without any encouragement from me.
Which is to say, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
3. I have already written about politicians like President Obama in this issue using OTHER people’s children as props to promote their agendas, including other people’s dead children. Now THAT is outrageous. This, at worst, is de minimus.
4. You believe this alleged agenda-pushing by the parents is wrong because you don’t like the message. If the T-shirt said, “ACLU: Support our rights!” I doubt you would think it was objectionable. Shouldn’t all children be taught by their parents to support and respect the Bill of Rights? Were all those black children carrying signs promoting equality during the Civil Rights movement and marches objectionable to you?
5. Check the comments policies. I really hate the tactic of commenters who write, “Don’t write what you want to, write what I want you to.” I especially dislike it when the suggested substitute topic is as undeserving as yours is.
I hope that answers your question sufficiently!
You tell him/her,Jack. Schools are abusing kids and they aren’t just isolated incidents either. Kudos to the father who goes to bat for his son! His kid will remember that dad went all out to defend him,not like some of these panty waist folks who let the schools steamroll over the top of the children. There’s a definite agenda here and it’s all one sided.
Let me add that if he wore a T that said gay and proud I’d defend his right to wear that too!
When I was in high school, that was never an issue. That’s because we were required to wear actual shirts to school! But that’s beside the point, of course. If the schools are going to allow t-shirts in class, they logically have to be prepared for ones with logoes on them. Now… where do you draw the line as to which ones are acceptable and which ones are obscene, foster violence or are otherwise offensive to the average pupil? Either you ban them all or allow them all. Perhaps requiring shirts or blouses would be the simplest solution, after all.
“Perhaps requiring shirts or blouses would be the simplest solution, after all.”
I was thinking if they’re going to allow what is offensive to some people they ought to allow what’s offensive to any and all people. Schools would not single out a gay rights tee shirt wearer anyway.
If the schools tried to enforce a dress code though you know all hell would break loose. Parents and kids picketing the school,bringing law suits claiming their freedom of speech was being violated.
About a decade ago, I did a project aimed at helping recruit potential math and science teachers to earn teaching certificates – a serious need. There is no particular need to recruit mush-brained social sciences teachers – those are available in abundance (more on that in a moment).
It was a depressing exercise. I found out a lot about how many teachers around here are teaching out of concentration – e.g., how many teachers who had managed to certify as qualified to teach who were ultimately assigned to math and science disciplines despite no specific expertise – or interest – in those fields, simply because there weren’t teachers who were into math/science available. These people had simply graduated as teachers, had the state-required certs to “prove” them worthy of hire, and the only gigs they could get were teaching math or science.
Apparently, there’s a glut of mush-brained social science teachers.
In the course of this project, I met some truly exceptional people – men and women who knew that teaching was a CALLING. These folks were nothing short of inspiring, and gave me a degree of comfort that maybe kids had something to look forward to after all.
But when I got past those people and read the numbers, I grew depressed. At least around here, those pursuing a degree in education are FAR from the brightest bulbs in the sign. It is truly shocking how little it takes to get a secure gig in a government school. One doesn’t need to be great, or even good, to get hired as a teacher in the current marketplace. One merely needs a pulse.
Thank God for those that ARE good. They provide a buffer against the majority of their peers
Backing up your point on the quality of math/science teachers and the difficulty in recruiting them: I almost became a high school math teacher with nothing more than a math degree. That I had done some tutoring and had relatives that were teachers made me a rock star. I hadn’t written a lessen plan or so much as even looked at a unit plan, but I could tell you what a quadratic equation was, and that was enough for them. A 23 year old who’d been a barely employed bum for a year and didn’t have any education or experience in the actual job was a rockstar.
I was reading the public comments pertaining to this story in the media. I can’t believe the things that I am reading! Some commenters are suggesting that Jared is a little punk and is an obvious threat becauae he should have known better in light of the rash of shootings at public schools. Another commenter suggested that Jared is getting what he deserves for not showing the appropriate sympathy to the Sandy Hook families and victims. I can’t deal with this stupidity!
Yes, Sharon, I almost made those and other idiotic comments the focus of the story. Depressing, isn’t it?
I suspect the comments in the news media will vary greatly depending on the political makeup of the coverage area. The local media where I live has comments that are very supportive of the boy and not nice about the police and school.
Didn’t the Supreme Court decide this issue in favor of the students? I remember the case (although not the name) back in the late 60’s or early 70’s, dealing with students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
Yes and no. The case you’re thinking of is Tinker v. Des Moines, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Some subsequent jurisprudence has carved out exceptions for “indecent” speech, regulation of newspaper content, and the promotion of illegal drug use. Applying this test here, it’s kind of a close call, an argument COULD be made that wearing a shirt drawing attention to gun rights at a time when there is a raging national debate about them is substantial interference with school discipline, but I don’t like that idea since it could produce a chilling effect on the First Amendment. Arrest was WAY beyond the pale, though, and an abuse of the police. No one was harmed by the wearing of a controversial shirt. Now, if the school was to ban ALL garments with writing on them apart from brand names and care information on tags, they might be on more solid ground, since that is content-neutral, or better yet, go to uniforms.
Then there’s the fact that asserting that one should protect one’s Constitutional rights is per se and by definition uncontroversial in a government setting, no matter what some idiot teacher may think. If that message is disruptive (it wasn’t, of course), something is seriously wrong.
Obviously the school should ban political expression of any kind in its dress code, but it did not, and it cannnot make up the rules as it goes along.
Hadn’t actually thought of it that way, but you are right that if we can’t assert that we should protect the Constitution in a government setting then where can we? By the way, please no one think that I necessarily AGREE with the assertion that wearing a shirt dealing with an issue during a time of controversy on that issue is substantial interference with discipline. I’m just saying that that’s an argument that could be made if it came to defending this in court, and attorneys take positions they don’t personally agree with all the time – it’s their job and ethical obligation to do so.
As for the latter paragraph, I agree, no making up the rules as you go along. However, I think the school dress code should be revised this summer, not to ban political expression of any kind, but to ban printing of any kind on garments except brand name and care instructions. The reason I say that is that “political expression of any kind” can become a bone of contention as to what constitutes political expression and what doesn’t, but a ban on all printing can’t be haggled over as to what means what.
I always liked the rule that one’s IQ is inversely related to the number of words on your T-shirt. And I read it on a T-shirt….
I wear black plain Tee shirts. Does that mean my IQ is zero?? Lol
The rule was inverse.
By that rule you’d have infinite intelligence.
Inverse. Means your IQ is pretty high.
Inverse! Inverse It means your IQ is off the charts in a good way.
Not high enough to read all the posts and catch that though. lol
I find your comment an entertaining logic trap. The wordless T-shirts meant your IQ was high, but you thought it meant your IQ was low. Thinking that meant your IQ was low, but then that matches what you thought it was, so maybe you were thinking ahead, meaning your IQ was high, ad infinitum.
If you assume a false dichotomy of high and low IQ. On an IQ continuum it is quite feasible. Especially, but not necessarily, given that the assumed tag on his t-shirt contains the words necessary to lower his IQ enough to make the mistake.
Solved.
Cheater. Using reality in my carefully constructed closed set of possibilities. Tsk tsk.
I haven’t argued with you lately. Jack has posted items we generally agree on. Gotta find these where I can.
Steve-O, the ban you suggest might have to be inclusive of visible brand names as well, just to be “fair.” Maybe the limitation should be a shirt that shows, at most, only the first name of the student wearing it. But, that might get into issues with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments…
At least limiting shirt-language to first names might help students and teachers to spell each other’s names correctly, like for example “laDasha” written as “La-a.” Oh well, I guess I have made a bad suggestion anyway, because who is going to pronounce “,,,,,KaMEE Lee On” correctly in any case? I get what you mean about care instructions, but then, what’s to stop someone from coming to school with a shirt showing in large letters, “Burn Before Wearing” and resorting to the Compliance Dodge?
At this WV twilight zone of a “school,” I bet that if a student identified himself as a member of the “Incestboro Craptist Church,” and wore a shirt that says, “God Hates Guns,” the next thing you know, every teacher in the school would be wearing a shirt saying the same thing.
Not sure how mandating disclosure of the first name is violative of the 4th or 5th Amendments. I am familiar with the story that inspired the “La-a” comment, and I hope you didn’t post that there to carry racial overtones, because the original story does carry some racial overtones, at least as I read it. Unfortunately I CAN see people resorting to the compliance dodge with care instructions, if for no reason than to give the school a hard time.
Steve-O, I was only partly serious and meaning mostly silliness throughout my whole comment, while disgusted with the WV school policy.
Mentioning the Fourth and Fifth Amendments was purely an exercise in imagination, that is, imagining how twisted some interpretations of those Amendments might be, in a “twilight zone” of Constitution-abuse such as the WV school – for examples: (1) someone suing against a rule requiring one’s name to be displayed on a shirt, on grounds that the required disclosure of the name is either an “unwarranted search,” and/or an invasion of privacy, and (2) a contention that because of the name-display rule, a student whose name was discernible via security cameras was unconstitutionally self-incriminating when he pulled the switch for a false fire alarm.
The La-a story was second-hand to me; the original story is unfamiliar to me. There was absolutely no implicit or explicit “racial angle” intended on my part. I was merely commenting with the understanding, which I believe is correct, that at least compared with the generations ago when I was a student in the public schools, students’ names in the U.S. these days generally, typically reflect quite a bit more diversity of spellings, and perhaps also reflect more diversity in choices of names.
Understood, unfortunately it’s sometimes hard to pick up when someone is being serious and when they are being mocking here unless they are really obvious about it, since we can’t pick up on tone of voice and other non-verbal cues. Sadly, I CAN see folks making the patently ridiculous arguments in the hypotheticals you advance.
The reason that I wondered if the Le-a story had racial overtones was that I wondered if you pulled it from this link here http://snopes.com/racial/language/le-a.asp
which, like it or not, implies those kind of overtones. I apologize, Jack, if posting a none-too-trustworthy but popular link is against the rules, although I think it can serve to illustrate the maybe questionable ethics of sites that really don’t do the research holding themselves out as authority.
I’m just saying that that’s an argument that could be made if it came to defending this in court, and attorneys take positions they don’t personally agree with all the time – it’s their job and ethical obligation to do so.
It’s an argument that has been tried and has repeatedly failed. The court cases where the ACLU has won judgements backing students wearing both pro-gay and anti-gay shirts should have put this argument to rests
…and that won’t stop litigants from making the arguments when they have different facts and circumstances. The fact that Tinker is a 1968 case and there were still cases on this type of issue in 2003 and later tells me it’s far from settled. As I said, the best bet is to go to school uniforms and not have to deal with this crap about pupils/students wearing their opinions on their sleeves (literally).
I agree that litigants still make the arguments. The arguments, though, are known losers. There’s no reason to bring them up here.
Thanks, but I’m a big boy and I think I can decide what I want to bring up and not to for myself. If Jack sees a problem, I’m sure he’ll let me know.
So… you only listen to logic and arguments if they come from Jack? Eesh.
Yeesh is right. That even scares ME.
I don’t think the argument that because there is a national controversy about guns right now that the shirt was more likely to cause a disruption. The reason Tinker was an issue was that students war armbands protesting the Vietnam war when the war was an extremely controversial issue, so much so that the named plaintiff in the case actually ended up having her home vandalized because of the case. The decision emphasized that teachers cannot infringe on political speech just because they don’t like the viewpoint being represented, and have to meet a very high standard to establish there was a foreseeable chance of substantial disruption. There is no way this case holds up if it goes to court, and no way that it should.
Absolutely right. The school has no leg to stand on, legally, ethically, logically.
I’m of couurse not saying it would hold up, in fact it shouldn’t. I’m just saying that would be the first argument an attorney arguing for it would make and that a judge might buy, at least until it reaches the more scholarly folks on the Appellate Court.
It is no surprise that supporting the Constitution is considered disruptive behavior. Civil rights are considered disruptive by almost all totalitarian regimes.
It’s not new- a dozen years ago as a Sophomore in high school after my first summer working at a Boy Scout camp gun range, the principal told me that I would be suspended if I wore my staff T-shirt again (crossed rifle and shotgun on the back with the words “Shooting Sports”). Because I was a nerdy little rules-lawyer even back then I asked him to show me where in the handbook it said I couldn’t, then went back to fixing his computer with the help of my (handbook-allowed!) pocketknife.
Flashback….1968….man in Army uniform who gets to fly on a commercial airline at a discount. To go home on leave. People in the airport spit on him and his uniform. No one was arrested. He quit flying in his uniform.
Since that time I have seen some of the most worthless printed trash appear on clothing. Seen way too many rear ends with saggy pants.
This kid has the 1st Amendment even on his clothes. And with what my hubby had to put up with in the airports back then, makes me proud that this kid may be one who joins the Army to fight for this country. Now that we have a volunteer Army. Not like that in ’68.
The teacher was wrong. Did anyone research the diploma?