A proposed solution to school uniforms

[Guest Lawrence Welk]

I've written to the Board offering my input. I've participated here. What more would you like me to do?

Matthew's decision how to handle the situation if the uniform policy is made applicable to him will be his own. The law is such that if a student strongly opposes a uniform, even assuming that it is legally valid and enforceable on its face, there are still plenty of things that a student can do to express himself that the school district cannot stop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OOPS, I DID IT AGAIN! Save it. Really. Take a stand now young Skywalker, before they come to infringe on your civil liberties yet again. They cannot stop you - the force is strong within you. Peanut Butter Jelly Time ... where he at - there he go!!!! Rawhide!!!! Nuggets to you and you and you.

Thank you, thank you very much..... I'l be here all week - except Wednsday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday.

[Guest Guest]

Of course people in plain clothes would fit in. In fact, if they're smart, they will go out of their way to do so, and the smart ones are the ones you have to worry about. The only thing that would increase security are the name and photo ID badges, which the students are already required to wear. "Guest" was responding to the argument that uniforms are an appropriate response to terrorism after 9/11. The argument is not well taken. As Guest accurately pointed out, uniforms would have no effect in that regard except to give the illusion that everyone in a uniform belonged there, so that if anything uniforms would make the school less secure, not more secure. I think it's a small point, but on the other hand where terrorism is concerned, many people think there are no small points. In any case, "Guest's" point is on target.

If arguing the matter here is getting nowhere, then why are you doing it? I post here with the hope and intent of getting people to think these issues through more deeply and maybe change their minds.

Speaking for myself, I have also spoken against uniforms at a BoE meeting and recently wrote the BoE a letter on the subject. I would welcome a forum in which these ideas could be more fully debated. It would be inappropriate to bring this matter up at a town council meeting, as this is not within the town's jurisdiction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was wondering if anyone else read the tripe that Paul LaClair wrote in The Observer about school uniforms. It’s nice to know that that article is now the liner for the bird cage. Anyway I am getting ahead of myself, and went on reading the rest of the article about how the LaClair entire family is against a dress code. LaClair goes on to state in the article that the “freedom as a people is no longer secure” over the issue of a school uniform. How is that for a bunch of malarkey? This comes from a man who went to school in the Midwest.

Over the summer there were forms sent out to each of the family stating on whether or not they want their student to wear uniforms. Based upon the majority of those results, the decision should be made, not by the result of one family biased comment. I believe that giving people the right to vote on things is what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about.

Paul then again goes on about his 30 years of being an attorney. But what he does not state that he is not even an attorney in New Jersey. And he is trying to dictate New Jersey law. Anyway this attorney apparently has difficult with the words what is skin tight or inappropriate clothing? If I may clear something up for him. If a said boy wears a skirt to class, that is inappropriate clothing.

Also he goes on that his suggestion is that a uniform should be mandatory for students who violate the dress code. However he personally would be the first one through the door of the majestic Kearny High School front door if his son was told to wear a uniform for violating this code.

In addition he goes on with the story about a frog and how it would boil to death. His analogy is supposed to be how wearing school uniforms is related to the threat of terrorism and global economy. How is that for a stretch of the imagination?

Finally he goes on that placing children in uniforms for 13 years stifles a child’s creativity. What he does not state in the article is that for over a year now the children in grades Kindergarten through 8 have successfully worn uniforms with little problems. In fact if you look at last years test results, the students seem to do better and be more attentive to their class work if they are dress liked a student should be dressed. He is promoting his same squeaky wheel tactics that he promoted when he tried to defend his son with the religion incident. Its ok, no one is listening again.

[Guest Paul]

How can you say with all due respect and then say in the very same sentence that the people of the PTA are liars? That is again so hypocritical of you.  It is comments like that that show you for what you really are, and the picture of you really is not painted a pretty one. 

The only thing you did get right was that all parents have eyes and ears.  Congratulations, you passed biology!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say the people of the PTA were liars. All I said was that PTA meetings aren't the sole source of information. When you accuse me of that, you may be the one bearing false witness. Now I don't know whether you're lying. Maybe you're too stupid or too ignorant to read and comprehend a simple sentence; it's one or the other, and maybe both. Feel better now?

As for what you and I respectively spend our time on:

Do you read a daily newspaper? If so, there's a big difference between USA Today and The New York Times.

Do you read books, and if so, do you read history, science, etc., or pulp fiction novels?

Do you study the issues affecting our town, its schools, our state, our country, the world? If so, in what detail?

Do you follow proceedings in Congress and the State Legislature and Kearny's town council? How carefully? What percentage of your day do you devote to citizenship, and how do you distribute that time among local, state, national and international issues?

Maybe you know more about the world than I do, but there's no evidence of it in what you're writing, and you're not a more responsible citizen just because you attend PTA meetings. (I'd still like to know why you or someone called it by another name, and I cannot understand why the question asking who is president of the PTA now hasn't been answered. Are you hiding something? You convey that impression.) There are plenty of places and plenty of ways for a person, parent or not, to practice citizenship and make a contribution.

We're all busy, and none of us has time to participate in but a tiny fraction of the organizations that touch our lives. Just because you attend PTA meetings, if you do, doesn't mean that's the only way to be a good citizen or a responsible parent. So if you want to label things, your comments are arrogant. And if you want a second opinion, you're acting like a foul, nasty person with a horrid attitude.

[Guest Paul]

Sure - but this fails to address one of the arguments for school uniforms -  avoidance of "gang-related" clothing (i.e., colors).  Starting to be a problem in Kearny, I am told.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I see no evidence of that at all.

2. Mooney denied that gangs were a problem in our schools.

3. The school cannot legally prohibit students from wearing particular colors. For example, if students want to wear green arm bands as a show of support for the environmental movement, that's speech, which the school is powerless to stop. And they can no more stop a gang from wearing its colors.

4. Think it through. Let's say there are gangs in Kearny High. The gang members know each other. Which way is the school better off:

A. The gangs are hidden from school officials because all the students look nice, neat and properly scrubbed in their uniforms; or

B. The gangs are visible because gang members are walking around the school wearing something that shouts to the whole world, "Hey, everybody, I'm a member of this gang!"

Is the problem easier to address if you can see it, or if you can't?

[Guest Paul]

I was wondering if anyone else read the tripe that Paul LaClair wrote in The Observer about school uniforms. It’s nice to know that that article is now the liner for the bird cage. Anyway I am getting ahead of myself, and went on reading the rest of the article about how the LaClair entire family is against a dress code.  LaClair goes on to state in the article that the “freedom as a people is no longer secure” over the issue of a school uniform.  How is that for a bunch of malarkey?  This comes from a man who went to school in the Midwest. 

Over the summer there were forms sent out to each of the family stating on whether or not they want their student to wear uniforms.  Based upon the majority of those results, the decision should be made, not by the result of one family biased comment. I believe that giving people the right to vote on things is what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about.

Paul then again goes on about his 30 years of being an attorney. But what he does not state that he is not even an attorney in New Jersey. And he is trying to dictate New Jersey law.  Anyway this attorney apparently has difficult with the words what is skin tight or inappropriate clothing?  If I may clear something up for him.  If a said boy wears a skirt to class, that is inappropriate clothing. 

Also he goes on that his suggestion is that a uniform should be mandatory for students who violate the dress code.  However he personally would be the first one through the door of the majestic Kearny High School front door if his son was told to wear a uniform for violating this code. 

In addition he goes on with the story about a frog and how it would boil to death. His analogy is supposed to be how wearing school uniforms is related to the threat of terrorism and global economy.  How is that for a stretch of the imagination? 

Finally he goes on that placing children in uniforms for 13 years stifles a child’s creativity. What he does not state in the article is that for over a year now the children in grades Kindergarten through 8 have successfully worn uniforms with little problems.  In fact if you look at last years test results, the students seem to do better and be more attentive to their class work if they are dress liked a student should be dressed.  He is promoting his same squeaky wheel tactics that he promoted when he tried to defend his son with the religion incident.  Its ok, no one is listening again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It may now line your bird cage, but you did read it, didn't you.

You don't understand history, which is ironic considering how my participation here started. German children looked neat and well-scrubbed, too, and Hitler made the trains run on time. Nice, neat, orderly; as opposed to the decadence of post-WWI Germany, which was reeling from the loss of the first major war of the 20th Century. And if you think that the comparison is poorly taken, you might want to remember that the German people had no idea the nightmare they were working themselves into. At the point in history where we are now, every major power has declined and come on hard times. I would like to think that we Americans can break history's pattern and preserve both our freedom and our prosperity, but we're not going to do that by following the path taken by all the cultures that preceded us, and declined. We're going to have to be dead-smack honest with ourselves, we're going to have to be smart and we're going to have to do things differently than great powers of the past have done if we are to avoid going the way every one of them has gone.

These things often happen a little bit at a time. The majority always says that the loss of certain freedoms is inconsequantial. People who oppose the imposition of "order" are always called vile names. The very fact that you're practically hyperventilating over this says plenty. By the time most people realize what is going on, it's because their freedoms are being palpably curtailed, but by then it's too late to do anything because now instead of assuming that they are free, people have become conditioned to the idea that they must conform. Why do you think it's so hard to bring democracy and freedom to peoples who aren't accustomed to them?

Are school uniforms in and of themselves calling cards of tyrants? Of course not, but what's most troubling about this development is that it comes right after 9/11, with the USA gripped with fear and we can't seem to give away freedom fast enough. So great, wonderful, let's send yet another message to our kids telling them that freedom used to be a good idea, but --- well --- we just can't afford it any more. What has happened to the American spirit of independence, which used to be championed by the Republican party? Have we lost our collective minds?

This wouldn't be the first time a major power has taken this path toward its own decline. And yet, it seems, we never ever learn. Certain aspects of education do enough damage fitting young people into molds without forcing them all to look the same to boot. You're getting very little benefit, if any at all, at the price of conditioning who knows how many generations of Americans that freedom just ain't what it used to be. So I'm asking: "Is it worth it?"

And you're mad as hell just because I'm asking the question and will not shut up about it as long as I have the power to speak out. Am I threatening your little world, your little fantasy of neatly scrubbed children all lined up single-file waiting for the closing bell? Have you nothing better to offer than snide remarks? Are you afraid that if people actually think these things through from all sides, they might change their minds? Sure seems that way.

As for your claims about better student performance: I've heard plenty of claims about the good these uniforms supposedly do, but I have yet to see a speck of hard data proving that they actually accomplish anything. Show us the data.

[Guest Paul]

I was wondering if anyone else read the tripe that Paul LaClair wrote in The Observer about school uniforms. It’s nice to know that that article is now the liner for the bird cage. Anyway I am getting ahead of myself, and went on reading the rest of the article about how the LaClair entire family is against a dress code.  LaClair goes on to state in the article that the “freedom as a people is no longer secure” over the issue of a school uniform.  How is that for a bunch of malarkey?  This comes from a man who went to school in the Midwest. 

Over the summer there were forms sent out to each of the family stating on whether or not they want their student to wear uniforms.  Based upon the majority of those results, the decision should be made, not by the result of one family biased comment. I believe that giving people the right to vote on things is what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about.

Paul then again goes on about his 30 years of being an attorney. But what he does not state that he is not even an attorney in New Jersey. And he is trying to dictate New Jersey law.  Anyway this attorney apparently has difficult with the words what is skin tight or inappropriate clothing?  If I may clear something up for him.  If a said boy wears a skirt to class, that is inappropriate clothing. 

Also he goes on that his suggestion is that a uniform should be mandatory for students who violate the dress code.  However he personally would be the first one through the door of the majestic Kearny High School front door if his son was told to wear a uniform for violating this code. 

In addition he goes on with the story about a frog and how it would boil to death. His analogy is supposed to be how wearing school uniforms is related to the threat of terrorism and global economy.  How is that for a stretch of the imagination? 

Finally he goes on that placing children in uniforms for 13 years stifles a child’s creativity. What he does not state in the article is that for over a year now the children in grades Kindergarten through 8 have successfully worn uniforms with little problems.  In fact if you look at last years test results, the students seem to do better and be more attentive to their class work if they are dress liked a student should be dressed.  He is promoting his same squeaky wheel tactics that he promoted when he tried to defend his son with the religion incident.  Its ok, no one is listening again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the way, in a democracy under a written Constitution with a Bill of Rights, not everything is or should be up to the majority. For example, the majority has no right to silence people who don't agree. The majority has no right to tell anyone what religion to belong to, how to worship, or whether to worship at all. The majority has no right to dictate what career someone will pursue, even if the person has a brilliant scientific mind and the nation needs great scientists. Stalin forced the great musical composer Shostakovich to compose in a way that Stalin deemed to be supportive of the Communist state and party; it was the worst music this great genius ever wrote, and Shostakovich took great pains to make sure that it was, throwing just enough of his skill into these deliberately second- and third-rate works to keep from being sent off to Siberia. The majority has no right to dictate what music we listen to or what books we can read or not read (unless it involves something like child pornography). And the majority has no right to tell citizens as a matter of course what color clothes to wear. When the majority thinks it can dictate choices like that to individuals, the majority has forgotten what our Constitutional system and freedom are all about; that is precisely the point we have been making and will continue to make about school uniforms.

These things should not be decided by majority vote. The essence of freedom is that each of us is free to make our own decisions unless the government has some very good reason for forcing us to do something in particular under penalty of law. The majority should recognize that clothing, within reasonable bounds as may properly be imposed by a dress code, is a matter of personal taste and freedom, and should back off on this issue. This is not a private employer. This is not a religious school, which people are free not to attend. This is a public school, which must be accessible to and accomading of every citizen. It is a unit of government, and in that context freedom must be zealously preserved.

In a free and democratic society, not everything is up to a majority vote. One of the saddest lessons from the events of this past year is that many people have obviously forgotten this fundamental premise of American democracy.

[Guest Tom]

I was wondering if anyone else read the tripe that Paul LaClair wrote in The Observer about school uniforms. It’s nice to know that that article is now the liner for the bird cage. Anyway I am getting ahead of myself, and went on reading the rest of the article about how the LaClair entire family is against a dress code.  LaClair goes on to state in the article that the “freedom as a people is no longer secure” over the issue of a school uniform.  How is that for a bunch of malarkey?  This comes from a man who went to school in the Midwest. 

Over the summer there were forms sent out to each of the family stating on whether or not they want their student to wear uniforms.  Based upon the majority of those results, the decision should be made, not by the result of one family biased comment. I believe that giving people the right to vote on things is what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about.

Paul then again goes on about his 30 years of being an attorney. But what he does not state that he is not even an attorney in New Jersey. And he is trying to dictate New Jersey law.  Anyway this attorney apparently has difficult with the words what is skin tight or inappropriate clothing?  If I may clear something up for him.  If a said boy wears a skirt to class, that is inappropriate clothing. 

Also he goes on that his suggestion is that a uniform should be mandatory for students who violate the dress code.  However he personally would be the first one through the door of the majestic Kearny High School front door if his son was told to wear a uniform for violating this code. 

In addition he goes on with the story about a frog and how it would boil to death. His analogy is supposed to be how wearing school uniforms is related to the threat of terrorism and global economy.  How is that for a stretch of the imagination? 

Finally he goes on that placing children in uniforms for 13 years stifles a child’s creativity. What he does not state in the article is that for over a year now the children in grades Kindergarten through 8 have successfully worn uniforms with little problems.  In fact if you look at last years test results, the students seem to do better and be more attentive to their class work if they are dress liked a student should be dressed.  He is promoting his same squeaky wheel tactics that he promoted when he tried to defend his son with the religion incident.  Its ok, no one is listening again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, look at all the people ignoring Paul.

Do people in Kearny take stupid lessons?

[Strife767]

Over the summer there were forms sent out to each of the family stating on whether or not they want their student to wear uniforms.  Based upon the majority of those results, the decision should be made, not by the result of one family biased comment. I believe that giving people the right to vote on things is what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about.

If you honestly think blindly following majority opinion is "what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about," then I truly pity you. By that logic, women still wouldn't have the vote, Africans would still be enslaved, etc. The Constitution is not about bending to the will of the majority, and never was. Educate yourself, for crying out loud.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I was wondering if anyone else read the tripe that Paul LaClair wrote in The Observer about school uniforms. It’s nice to know that that article is now the liner for the bird cage. Anyway I am getting ahead of myself, and went on reading the rest of the article about how the LaClair entire family is against a dress code.  LaClair goes on to state in the article that the “freedom as a people is no longer secure” over the issue of a school uniform.  How is that for a bunch of malarkey?  This comes from a man who went to school in the Midwest. 

Over the summer there were forms sent out to each of the family stating on whether or not they want their student to wear uniforms.  Based upon the majority of those results, the decision should be made, not by the result of one family biased comment. I believe that giving people the right to vote on things is what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about.

Paul then again goes on about his 30 years of being an attorney. But what he does not state that he is not even an attorney in New Jersey. And he is trying to dictate New Jersey law.  Anyway this attorney apparently has difficult with the words what is skin tight or inappropriate clothing?  If I may clear something up for him.  If a said boy wears a skirt to class, that is inappropriate clothing. 

Also he goes on that his suggestion is that a uniform should be mandatory for students who violate the dress code.  However he personally would be the first one through the door of the majestic Kearny High School front door if his son was told to wear a uniform for violating this code. 

In addition he goes on with the story about a frog and how it would boil to death. His analogy is supposed to be how wearing school uniforms is related to the threat of terrorism and global economy.  How is that for a stretch of the imagination? 

Finally he goes on that placing children in uniforms for 13 years stifles a child’s creativity. What he does not state in the article is that for over a year now the children in grades Kindergarten through 8 have successfully worn uniforms with little problems.  In fact if you look at last years test results, the students seem to do better and be more attentive to their class work if they are dress liked a student should be dressed.  He is promoting his same squeaky wheel tactics that he promoted when he tried to defend his son with the religion incident.  Its ok, no one is listening again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I read it. I wrapped my dog's crap in it. Paul is the poster boy for the Loony Left, his rantings are becoming bizarre.

[Guest KHS PARENT]

I for one did sign the letter that came home. I also agree with Paul. Kids in High School should NOT be told what to wear. It should be the responsibility of the parents and the child to know what is proper and inproper. I totally disagree with school uniforms. But as someone else said the decision is already made and we do not count on our opinions. If the school administration can not control what the Kids are coming into school wearing now, what makes you think they can enforce a uniform. It is NOT FAIR to the kids that dress according to the regular school policy. I for one know that MY child goes to school properly. This is just another tactic of someone else doing the parents job. It is a shame parents can no longer deal with their children and make sure they wear appropriate clothing to school. Shame on them. Everyone else has to do their job. What a shame step up parents and do YOUR job and other children would not have to suffer the consequences of the children not dressing properly.

[Guest Thanks for letting me post as yo]

I don't know whether the situation is as bad as is presented in this post and the one it responds to, but I did recognize that the complaint about the dress code not being too hard to enforce it didn't ring true. Then I looked at the dress code and understood why no one wants to enforce it: it doesn't say anything, and on most issues of dress it probably wouldn't support any disciplinary action that was challenged. The remedy to that is to write a proper dress code. This has been done all over the country. There's no reason why it can't be done here. I do agree that khakis and a polo shirt won't solve any significant problem in our schools, and eventually the students will oppose it and the requirement will be ended anyway. It's not worth the fuss that will ensue sooner or later, and it certainly isn't the way a free people trains its youth to become citizens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good luck my friend.

By the way you said it correctly - trains. Who trains young minds these days?

I don't see it as a solution, but rather a step towards a return to order and control of the school setting as a whole. It certainly is not fascism. Although I get the feeling many feel it to be without stating it.

"Give me liberty, or give me death..."(my apologies Mr. Henry).

I am tired of the selfish, personal liberty demands. "I can do whatever I want", my personal inconvenience is not required -ever.

"If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!" - Patrick Henry March 23, 1775 addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses.

Unfortunately for Patrick Henry he couldn't put that on a t-shirt and wear it when he went to St. John's that day.

[Guest Guest]

"We cannot place our children in uniforms for 13 of the most formative years of their lives without also sending them a message. In a public school setting, that message is that giving up a little freedom is no big deal. Like the frog, they’ll sit there and not even notice what is happening. That is why we are so vehement in opposing school uniforms."

What a bonehead. Now Paul is insinuating that kids that have spent 13 years in a private school wearing uniforms have no imagination, creativity, or free will.

Return to the shadow. You shall not pass!

[Guest Guest]

By the way, in a democracy under a written Constitution with a Bill of Rights, not everything is or should be up to the majority. For example, the majority has no right to silence people who don't agree. The majority has no right to tell anyone what religion to belong to, how to worship, or whether to worship at all. The majority has no right to dictate what career someone will pursue, even if the person has a brilliant scientific mind and the nation needs great scientists. Stalin forced the great musical composer Shostakovich to compose in a way that Stalin deemed to be supportive of the Communist state and party; it was the worst music this great genius ever wrote, and Shostakovich took great pains to make sure that it was, throwing just enough of his skill into these deliberately second- and third-rate works to keep from being sent off to Siberia. The majority has no right to dictate what music we listen to or what books we can read or not read (unless it involves something like child pornography). And the majority has no right to tell citizens as a matter of course what color clothes to wear. When the majority thinks it can dictate choices like that to individuals, the majority has forgotten what our Constitutional system and freedom are all about; that is precisely the point we have been making and will continue to make about school uniforms.

These things should not be decided by majority vote. The essence of freedom is that each of us is free to make our own decisions unless the government has some very good reason for forcing us to do something in particular under penalty of law. The majority should recognize that clothing, within reasonable bounds as may properly be imposed by a dress code, is a matter of personal taste and freedom, and should back off on this issue. This is not a private employer. This is not a religious school, which people are free not to attend. This is a public school, which must be accessible to and accomading of every citizen. It is a unit of government, and in that context freedom must be zealously preserved.

In a free and democratic society, not everything is up to a majority vote. One of the saddest lessons from the events of this past year is that many people have obviously forgotten this fundamental premise of American democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not recall anything in that post that was trying to silence anyone. All the writer was trying to say is that if it is left up to a vote and the majority agrees on it, then I think the school system has every right to enforce the majority’s decision. What the school board is saying and I think you are too is that some of the personal tastes that some of these students have chose for their clothing is inappropriate.

And this is not a private employer or a religious school. So you are saying if someone strong-arms the majority into doing something, then according to your Stalin-like approach, the majority should back down. That is not the principles that this country was founded upon. We will become the United States of Paul with you as dictator, since you believe we are all just sheep.

What I do find really amazing is that someone with your so professed education has trouble spelling the word “accommodating”. See Paul’s above post. I guess it was a Freudian slip, since he has not ever accommodated anyone before.

[Guest Guest]

If you honestly think blindly following majority opinion is "what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about," then I truly pity you. By that logic, women still wouldn't have the vote, Africans would still be enslaved, etc. The Constitution is not about bending to the will of the majority, and never was. Educate yourself, for crying out loud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not as much as I pity you, Matthew LaClair.

[Guest Guest]

OOPS, I DID IT AGAIN!  Save it. Really. Take a stand now young Skywalker, before they come to infringe on your civil liberties yet again.  They cannot stop you - the force is strong within you. Peanut Butter Jelly Time ... where he at - there he go!!!!  Rawhide!!!! Nuggets to you and you and you.

Thank you, thank you very much..... I'l be here all week - except Wednsday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your an idiot

[Guest Paul]

"We cannot place our children in uniforms for 13 of the most formative years of their lives without also sending them a message. In a public school setting, that message is that giving up a little freedom is no big deal. Like the frog, they’ll sit there and not even notice what is happening. That is why we are so vehement in opposing school uniforms."

What a bonehead.  Now Paul is insinuating that kids that have spent 13 years in a private school wearing uniforms have no imagination, creativity, or free will.

Return to the shadow.  You shall not pass!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that's not my point, which you're missing completely. Private school students are there because their parents affirmvatively choose to send them there. They enter their school at their parents' volition, knowing what its rules and requirements are. It's a free choice.

By contrast, the public schools are the default system, and an arm of the government. Everyone of school-age is entitled to a free public education and is required to attend the local public school unless the parent affirmatively selects a private school, or home schools. There's no guarantee that any public school in the district or surrounding area will offer an education that is acceptable to the parents and/or student.

For that reason, and because public schools offer an education through the government, there ought to be limits on what government can force students to do. You can argue, for example, that daily prayer is good for young people, but the public schools may not promote or sponsor prayer. That's why it's different. It's the government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

Public schools train generations of young minds. It is wrong for the government to send a message to young minds that the government may dictate what color clothing they may wear.

[Guest Bing]

If you honestly think blindly following majority opinion is "what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about," then I truly pity you. By that logic, women still wouldn't have the vote, Africans would still be enslaved, etc. The Constitution is not about bending to the will of the majority, and never was. Educate yourself, for crying out loud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, if you read "Democracy in America" by Alexi DeTocqueville, he addresses a point called "tyranny of the majority". He lamented that the majority could control the actions of the mass. However, he did note that it was necessary - after a brief period of debate - for those who dissent to bend to the will of the majority in order for society to operate efficiently.

It should be noted, however, that this was a time when much had yet to be decided about how the Constitution should be interpreted. Accordingly, debate was commonplace, open and even encouraged. Therefore, 'bending to the will' would only happen after dissenting opinions were heard, discussed, considered and thereafter rejected.

It would be nice to return to a time when fair and open debate was encouraged on topics at issue. Unfortunately, those in the majority these days typically fail to tolerate antithetical opinions. It would also be nice to return to a time when individuals - having been heard and having their opinions rejected - would bend to the will in order to promote a more efficient society. Unfortunately, these days all too many tend to whine and otherwise throw hissyfits when rulings don't go their way, rather than politely disagreeing with - but accepting - the will of the majority.

[Guest Guest]

If you honestly think blindly following majority opinion is "what this whole idea of a Constitution is all about," then I truly pity you. By that logic, women still wouldn't have the vote, Africans would still be enslaved, etc. The Constitution is not about bending to the will of the majority, and never was. Educate yourself, for crying out loud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, I try not to reply to the comments of Strife, but this one I cannot help. Please answer me this, where in that persons comment do they use the word "blindly". I am sick and tired of you insinuating what people feel and say. You take almost everything out of context and spin it to fit your own agenda. You, my child, are an idiot. There, I said it, you are an idiot. You are the one to be pitied. I only hope that you are a teenager with no guidance, because if you are an adult, I truly pity you. Get out of the house, away from the computer, get a boyfriend/girlfriend, and please go get some fresh air.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You know, I try not to reply to the comments of Strife, but this one I cannot help. Please answer me this, where in that persons comment do they use the word "blindly". I am sick and tired of you insinuating what people feel and say. You take almost everything out of context and spin it to fit your own agenda. You, my child, are an idiot. There, I said it, you are an idiot. You are the one to be pitied. I only hope that you are a teenager with no guidance, because if you are an adult, I truly pity you. Get out of the house, away from the computer, get a boyfriend/girlfriend, and please go get some fresh air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm losing track. Paul is now posting as "Guest". So lets add them up, he posts as Paul, Strife, Matthew, Guest, and probably a few others that I'm not onto yet. Could it be the Kool-aid that's causing his MPD ??

[Strife767]

You know, I try not to reply to the comments of Strife, but this one I cannot help. Please answer me this, where in that persons comment do they use the word "blindly".

They don't use that word (obviously), but how else could the following be described?

"Based upon the majority of those results, the decision should be made"

In other words, whatever the majority says, goes. If that's not blindly following majority opinion, I'd like you to tell me what is.

I am sick and tired of you insinuating what people feel and say. You take almost everything out of context and spin it to fit your own agenda.

I am sick and tired of people falsely accusing me of things like the above.

You, my child, are an idiot. There, I said it, you are an idiot.

Says the guy defending the person who thinks the Constitution is "all about" submitting to the will of the majority.

"You know what, next time you have a thought...just let it go. You'll be way ahead of the game." --Ron White

You are the one to be pitied. I only hope that you are a teenager with no guidance, because if you are an adult, I truly pity you.

One who has no idea how absurd an idea he is defending would.

Get out of the house, away from the computer, get a boyfriend/girlfriend, and please go get some fresh air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't pretend to know me--it only makes you look more ignorant.

Also, can you find one single, solitary post of mine where I have said something like the above to someone else? Foolish hypocrite--you accuse me of "insinuating" while you spew tripe like this, personal comments about someone you've never even met. You are what you criticize, not I, and you don't even know it. Pathetic.

[Strife767]

Not as much as I pity you, Matthew LaClair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prove I am Matthew. Put up or shut up.

[Guest Paul]

I do not recall anything in that post that was trying to silence anyone. All the writer was trying to say is that if it is left up to a vote and the majority agrees on it, then I think the school system has every right to enforce the majority’s decision.  What the school board is saying and I think you are too is that some of the personal tastes that some of these students have chose for their clothing is inappropriate. 

And this is not a private employer or a religious school.  So you are saying if someone strong-arms the majority into doing something, then according to your Stalin-like approach, the majority should back down. That is not the principles that this country was founded upon. We will become the United States of Paul with you as dictator, since you believe we are all just sheep.

What I do find really amazing is that someone with your so professed education has trouble spelling the word “accommodating”. See Paul’s above post. I guess it was a Freudian slip, since he has not ever accommodated anyone before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is more dictatorial:

The majority dictating to everyone what to wear; or

Everyone being required to wear clothing that is decent and respectable, but beyond that remaining free to choose color, style, etc., within reason.

Pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Guest Guest]

Actually, if you read "Democracy in America" by Alexi DeTocqueville, he addresses a point called "tyranny of the majority".  He lamented that the majority could control the actions of the mass.  However, he did note that it was necessary - after a brief period of debate - for those who dissent to bend to the will of the majority in order for society to operate efficiently. 

It should be noted, however, that this was a time when much had yet to be decided about how the Constitution should be interpreted.  Accordingly, debate was commonplace, open and even encouraged.  Therefore, 'bending to the will' would only happen after dissenting opinions were heard, discussed, considered and thereafter rejected. 

It would be nice to return to a time when fair and open debate was encouraged on topics at issue.  Unfortunately, those in the majority these days typically fail to tolerate antithetical opinions.  It would also be nice to return to a time when individuals - having been heard and having their opinions rejected - would bend to the will in order to promote a more efficient society.  Unfortunately, these days all too many tend to whine and otherwise throw hissyfits when rulings don't go their way, rather than politely disagreeing with - but accepting - the will of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thank you for that refreshing breath of 'new air".

it was getting rather stale here.

[Guest Guest]

Your an idiot

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for noticing. Unfortunately I'm not alone. My crap is just easily identifiable, unlike so much that gets posted here under the guise of truth and the American Way.

[Guest Paul]

Actually, if you read "Democracy in America" by Alexi DeTocqueville, he addresses a point called "tyranny of the majority".  He lamented that the majority could control the actions of the mass.  However, he did note that it was necessary - after a brief period of debate - for those who dissent to bend to the will of the majority in order for society to operate efficiently. 

It should be noted, however, that this was a time when much had yet to be decided about how the Constitution should be interpreted.  Accordingly, debate was commonplace, open and even encouraged.  Therefore, 'bending to the will' would only happen after dissenting opinions were heard, discussed, considered and thereafter rejected. 

It would be nice to return to a time when fair and open debate was encouraged on topics at issue.  Unfortunately, those in the majority these days typically fail to tolerate antithetical opinions.  It would also be nice to return to a time when individuals - having been heard and having their opinions rejected - would bend to the will in order to promote a more efficient society.  Unfortunately, these days all too many tend to whine and otherwise throw hissyfits when rulings don't go their way, rather than politely disagreeing with - but accepting - the will of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not entirely accurate. It depends on the issue.

Some things must be decided by majority vote, such as:

- who will hold each elective office;

- will a new road be built and if so where will it be located, how many lanes wide will it be, etc.;

- what will be the amount of taxes collected, and by what methods;

- will the country go to war.

The reason issues like this must be decided by majority vote, or by some method following a majority or super-majority vote is that the group of people comprising the governmental unit must make these decisions together. Each elective office must be filled to one person to the exclusion of all others; it makes no sense to put in two parallel highways half a mile from each other; the government can't collect only 10% in taxes and yet at the same time 25%; a country cannot both go and not go to war. In each of these cases, a choice must be made, and everyone must abide by it.

Please tell me why the majority gets to decide what color shirt and pants someone puts on in the morning. Why isn't this choice better left to the individual?