The High School That Says NEE !!
McWalters to decide yearbook photo flapBy Gina Macris (Projo)
PORTSMOUTH — The commissioner of education has been asked to weigh in on the issue of the Portsmouth High School student who has been prohibited from using a senior yearbook photo showing him carrying a prop medieval sword.
The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Patrick Agin and his mother, Heidi Farrington, and the Portsmouth School Committee have agreed to a ruling from Commissioner Peter McWalters as a means of expediting a case before the U.S. District Court.
The ACLU originally filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island Superior Court last week seeking an injunction to prevent the high school from printing the yearbook without Patrick’s senior photo.
The complaint alleges that high school principal Robert Littlefield violated Agin’s right to free speech when he rejected the photo. Agin is a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, an international organization that re-enacts medieval and Renaissance history.
Littlefield has suggested he believes the photo would violate the school’s “zero tolerance” against weapons.
The Portsmouth School Committee, the defendant in the case, had the jurisdiction changed to the federal court, where Judge William Smith held a conference in chambers on Friday.
Smith has indicated he wants the case resolved before a Feb. 28 deadline for publication of the yearbook.
The ACLU agreed to file an administrative appeal of Littlefield’s decision with McWalters “so as to not involve unnecessarily the federal judiciary in this dispute,” Smith wrote in an order published after Friday’s conference.
The ACLU filed the administrative appeal yesterday, according to Steven Brown, the executive director of the local chapter. But the appeal does not mean the federal court will yield jurisdiction of the case.
In his order, Smith urged McWalters to decide the appeal no later than Jan. 19 “because of the expedited nature of this case.”
He also ordered the ACLU and the School Committee to report back to him by Jan. 5.
Sassette: What say you?
Xen: I have several thoughts, Maid Sassete.
Firstly, I think that the kids ongoing enrolment in the "club" shows a viable interest in the subject. It's not as if he's a kid obsessed with dressing like a terrorist and performing rituals over a death-wish list of fellow students. On the other hand, if it was me and they said the MONSTER SWORD wasn't allowed by blanket policy, then I would probably use my creativity to get a picture that showed my interest without policy problems. Maybe I'd ask about a lance or something - and if that finally didn't appease them I would probably have something without a weapon, but that showed my interest in the organization.
The policy, to me, is one of those typically hard core black & white laws that doesn't take into account common sense.
To me, in the real world, it would be as when I was a kid. If the principal allowed that child's picture and my kid wanted to dress like Rambo but they said no ...I'd ask why...then accept it. I don't agree with the 'immediately go to court because you restricted my underage son's "right" to free speech.' Mostly because I believe that if a child is under 18, he HAS NO SUCH RIGHTS.
So ...to sum up.
Xen's opinion is that the school and society's policies are wrong. And the kid is wrong. And the kid's parents are wrong. And we have better, more important educational discussions and arguments to have that this. So everyone's time is being wasted.
Hell ...now our time is being wasted because we are discussing it ...LOL !!! That's it... we must lay siege to the school! Gather the feathers and boil the oil.... Now where did my dragon get off to? "PUFF??? PUFF !!! Here, boy! Sassette & I have got some people for you to eat..."
Firstly, I think that the kids ongoing enrolment in the "club" shows a viable interest in the subject. It's not as if he's a kid obsessed with dressing like a terrorist and performing rituals over a death-wish list of fellow students. On the other hand, if it was me and they said the MONSTER SWORD wasn't allowed by blanket policy, then I would probably use my creativity to get a picture that showed my interest without policy problems. Maybe I'd ask about a lance or something - and if that finally didn't appease them I would probably have something without a weapon, but that showed my interest in the organization.
The policy, to me, is one of those typically hard core black & white laws that doesn't take into account common sense.
To me, in the real world, it would be as when I was a kid. If the principal allowed that child's picture and my kid wanted to dress like Rambo but they said no ...I'd ask why...then accept it. I don't agree with the 'immediately go to court because you restricted my underage son's "right" to free speech.' Mostly because I believe that if a child is under 18, he HAS NO SUCH RIGHTS.
So ...to sum up.
Xen's opinion is that the school and society's policies are wrong. And the kid is wrong. And the kid's parents are wrong. And we have better, more important educational discussions and arguments to have that this. So everyone's time is being wasted.
Hell ...now our time is being wasted because we are discussing it ...LOL !!! That's it... we must lay siege to the school! Gather the feathers and boil the oil.... Now where did my dragon get off to? "PUFF??? PUFF !!! Here, boy! Sassette & I have got some people for you to eat..."
Sassette: Agreed.
I wish the article stated exactly what the policy states, because I really don't think that you can take a completely informed position without knowing what about the photo is in violation of the policy.
If it is merely the sight of a "weapon" in the photo that is being claimed to violate a "zero tolerance" weapons policy, then I think the school administrators involved should have their heads examined. The photo was taken by a private photographer, not on school grounds, and the "weapon" in question is part of an historical costume.
I wish the article stated exactly what the policy states, because I really don't think that you can take a completely informed position without knowing what about the photo is in violation of the policy.
If it is merely the sight of a "weapon" in the photo that is being claimed to violate a "zero tolerance" weapons policy, then I think the school administrators involved should have their heads examined. The photo was taken by a private photographer, not on school grounds, and the "weapon" in question is part of an historical costume.
My feeling is that if the school is going to allow students to enter yearbook photos of themselves involved in their hobbies/extracurricular activities, even if they are not school-sponsored, then the photo should be allowed. For instance, if this was a photo of a student holding a surf board, or paint brush, or bowling ball - would there still be a problem? If yes, then the photo goes; if no, the photo stays.
Xen: OK, I would have a problem with any dork who wants to have their yearbook photo showing them holding a BOWLING BALL.... That SHOULD be disallowed!!!!
Sassette (rolling eyes): If there is a rule that all student photos must be taken in proper dress, sans piercings, unnatural hair color, visible tattoos, etc., then the photo is clearly unacceptable. Personally I feel that this is the only sensible school policy, because letting teenagers (and probably their parents...)
Xen (interjecting): Sad, but very true in today's world ... these parents came up with TIE-DYE and Earth Shoes after all
Sassette: AS I WAS SAYING... letting teenagers decide what constitutes "acceptable dress" is never going to work. The generation gap prohibits teens and adults from seeing eye-to-eye on these things.
That said, I feel that the time and energy being expended on this issue is ridiculous. "Zero tolerance" policies are stupid and insipid and should be done away with . (I have a "zero tolerance" policy for "zero tolerance" policies) Now we have school administrators, judges and the ACLU all wasting time on something that however unfair (if the policy was indeed unfairly applied) should have been obeyed.
Parents of this generation are doing their children a HUGE disservice by treating every perceived slight against their precious little ones as an assault on civil liberties. The school wasn't burning books for heaven's sake! His costume is a foolish choice for immortalization in a yearbook! The idea that a photograph of a replica of a medieval sword constitutes a violation of a weapons policy is as foolish as the costume itself. But foolishness is not a crime worthy of this much attention from people (parents, student, educators, judges, ACLU reps) who should really have more important things to do.
I know I have more important things to do...
Xen: SO THERE. CASE SOLVED. An Edict has been made.
That said, I feel that the time and energy being expended on this issue is ridiculous. "Zero tolerance" policies are stupid and insipid and should be done away with . (I have a "zero tolerance" policy for "zero tolerance" policies) Now we have school administrators, judges and the ACLU all wasting time on something that however unfair (if the policy was indeed unfairly applied) should have been obeyed.
Parents of this generation are doing their children a HUGE disservice by treating every perceived slight against their precious little ones as an assault on civil liberties. The school wasn't burning books for heaven's sake! His costume is a foolish choice for immortalization in a yearbook! The idea that a photograph of a replica of a medieval sword constitutes a violation of a weapons policy is as foolish as the costume itself. But foolishness is not a crime worthy of this much attention from people (parents, student, educators, judges, ACLU reps) who should really have more important things to do.
I know I have more important things to do...
Xen: SO THERE. CASE SOLVED. An Edict has been made.
