Me too! Uh, all in the interest of breast cancer detection and awareness, of course. Wait, what did you think I meant?
As is often the case, this topic interests me more than it appears to engage Ethics Alarms readers, so I was thrilled to see the following comment by Ulrike, who seems to share my belief that “Keep A Breast” Foundation is the ethics villain of this First Amendment skirmish, choosing buzz and cheap publicity over responsible messaging and being willing to throw well-aimed, legally immune monkey wrench into the classroom as well.
Here is the Comment of the Day by Ulrike (who also has amassed a bumper crop of Ethics Alarms brownie points by being the blogs most determined volunteer proof-reader) on the post The “I ♥ Boobies” Saga.
I beg anyone’s pardon if you may find this off topic, but I really need to vent my anger about these bracelets: The message that these bracelets are sending out is not “Save your life by having regular check-ups!” but “Women are perceived as having breasts first, and subsequently as a person”. All this bracelet manages to do is to reduce women to their sexual attractiveness while fighting for their very lives. Well done, “Keep A Breast” Foundation. I wonder what bracelets girls and women who fell victim to aggressive breast cancer and lost one or both breasts are supposed to wear. Maybe “Don’t got boobies you can love anymore”?
I speak from personal experience when I say that society’s breast mania has us women so fast in their clutches that when diagnosed with tumors in our breasts – our first thought is not: “OMG, is this serious or will I survive this and get well again?” BUT “Will my breasts be so ugly that my boyfriend/husband may not find me attractive anymore after all is said and done?”.
Regarding the school’s and court’s decision: Even if it were girls wearing “I love boobies” bracelets and were toting the freedom-of-speech-bag along, I don’t understand why the school couldn’t make a case for sexual harassment in spite of everything. Sexual harassers can, after all, be both male and female. The bracelet can also be understood as having a certain sexual preference or fixation on breasts. I certainly wouldn’t want my boss to wear an “I love to suck on nipples” T-shirt because he wants to raise the awareness that the milk duct tissue of female breasts holds the most risk of developing cancer.
So where will the line be drawn? Teens and young people are also fascinated by anything morbid. The bracelets could have easily been made with a slogan along those lines. Something that really puts an emphasis on the dead seriousness of this disease. “Don’t care about my breasts if I’m dead!” would also make for a great slogan.
I’m back. The answer to Ulrike’s query about the sexual harassment issue is frustrating, and one that shows the limitations on a court. The majority opinion explains that while the argument was raised on appeal, it cannot be considered because it wasn’t raised in the lower courts. An appellant is limited to matters that were litigated in the original case. I think this was a major omission, because the sexual harassment potential of the bracelets and their progeny, as Ulrike points out, is obvious and persuasive.
Ethics Alarms 
“As is often the case, this topic interests me more than it appears to engage Ethics Alarms readers”
It doesn’t mean it doesn’t engage us. Usually when we agree or an issue is fairly slam dunk no one comments. Most commentary is disagreement an follow on argument.
The usual suspects who ordinarily grace us with long diatribes calling every technicality out involving your phraseology on 1st Amendment or Dress Code ethics posts haven’t been around lately.
If, true, though, this is also troubling, because a large proportion of the public, mostly on the left, appear to agree with the decision and agree with the parents and students…unless I’m more persuasive than I think I am. It is not a good thing if this blog ends up with only a right center audience. I know the progressives are in the bunker right now, but I want to hear their arguments. Echo chambers aren’t healthy.
There’s so much to be upset about in the world today, we lefties cannot comment on every post. But, for the record, I can’t imagine sending my daughter to school wearing such a bracelet — free speech or not. I also don’t like parents using kids as platforms for their pet or political causes in general. Every time I saw a toddler in a Romney or Obama T-shirt during the last campaign, I wanted to punch the parent in the face.
Kids as human billboards. Despicable.
Here’s where I go even further though. I don’t like kids going to church. I feel that it is brainwashing. I am not anti-religion, and my parents were religious, but I think it’s wrong. We are planning on teaching comparative religion to our kids and, once they are older, they can go to church if they choose.
I confess; the reason texagg04 describes is one of two reasons I haven’t been commenting lately (the other is that college has started up again). I usually feel my comments would be redundant and rehash everything Jack or a commenter says for the same reasons they said it. Suffice to say I agree with the vast majority (but not all) of Jack’s conclusions and analyses of situations, which are more comprehensive and elegant than mine would be were I to make them at the present time. I’m a regular reader and on the same page for the most part; I just tend to jump in only when there’s something I think should be said that nobody’s said yet. Just know I’m here and supporting the cause. After I graduate I will continue to investigate and gradually implement efforts to shift culture towards better ethics as well as self-empowerment.
“The majority opinion explains that while the argument was raised on appeal, it cannot be considered because it wasn’t raised in the lower courts. An appellant is limited to matters that were litigated in the original case. I think this was a major omission, because the sexual harassment potential of the bracelets and their progeny, as Ulrike points out, is obvious and persuasive.”
Well then THIS school district needs to drop this case, and talk some other school district needs to pick it back up. This school district can’t argue this since they got their original trail. But if you start with a new school and new kids, then you get a new trial. They can then raise this argument.
“Sexual harassers can, after all, be both male and female. The bracelet can also be understood as having a certain sexual preference or fixation on breasts.”
OK I can agree a male wearing “I ♥ Boobies” bracelet may be seen as a sexual harasser, but how can a heterosexual female be a sexual harasser? Who is she harassing, herself?
Are you asking how a heterosexual female can be a sexual harasser in general or by wearing above mentioned bracelet? If it’s the latter, then it’s not about the intentions of the bearer (how ever well meant or not, as is the case with many teens who just want to get few laughs out of it), but how it is perceived by the persons exposed to it.
Where was the demonstrated (rather than hypothesised potential) harm?
I quite like them.
That took longer than I expected.
Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life, or the word isn’t as commonly used here, but the ornithological meaning was the first one I thought of.
Question – would a T-shirt with just the picture of the birds and “I (heart)” be a problem? I can imagine that in some schools it would, in most, no.
That’s the Dress Code Effect, exactly.
At least one of the court opinions referenced the blue-footed boobies as proof that the pherase was ambiguous and thus could not be called lewd or disruptive.This how any regulation can be lawyered out of existence.
I know all about the blue-footed boobies because Little Einsteins does an episode on them — which my 3 year-old has seen a million times. Ugh.
I quite like them.
**************
So do I.
We have some nice birds here in FL but those blue feet are special.
I quite like these too.
Context is everything. Something that might be wholly inoffensive and harmless in one situation might be quite different in another. I feel that something more firmly grounded than “well it might cause an issue” is needed to justify a ban in a US context.
In an Australian one, where it is recognised that there is no written, legalistic protection of Freedom of Speech, only custom, then such a ban at a school would be heavy-handed and unjustified in my opinion, but not prohibited. I would argue with the school administration, but defer to their superior knowledge.
A few steps up from the “I love boobies” bracelets could also take the form of t-shirts with “Love my bitch” slogans. Would the defense argue that the student was merely expressing his love for a female canine and then refer to the original meaning of the word:
http://www.etymonline.com: bitch (n.) Old English bicce “female dog,” probably from Old Norse bikkjuna “female of the dog” (also fox, wolf, and occasionally other beasts), of unknown origin. [also:]A she dog, or doggess.
Also: the “I love boobies” slogan on the bracelets is immediately followed by the words “Keep a breast” – so no confusing the word “boobies” with anything else.
The shirts could be more sneeky, perhaps by showing a cute little doggy picture underneath the words. There’s no limit to the possibilities…