Gifted students won't let go of "Gifties" T-shirt case

Four years ago, a principal told them they couldn't wear their t-shirts. Now their case is before a federal appeals court, where a judge asked on Thursday: "Why do people bring lawsuits for such trivialities? Have they been harmed, these Gifties?" (Chicago Sun-Times)

Comments

[Michael Brutsch]

So typical of the judiciary: "Why are you peasants so concerned with 'your rights' and 'the law'. Just do as you're told, spend 'til you're broke, and work 'til you're dead. Now, Beulah, fetch me a mint julep."

[Paul Johnson]

I disagree Michael...I think the point that the judge was trying to make was that in light of the thousands upon thousands of lawsuites per year, this one is more or less a waste of time and taxpayers money.

Imagine if everyone who felt "wronged" by an authority figure (especially as a kid) when confronted with enforcing of rules suddenly decided to take it to court...the system would collapse under the weight.

I have learned a long time ago to "pick my battles." I don't agree with the school's decision, but maybe these kids should be freeing up the courts to deal with the bigger issues.

Just a thought.

The kids should just drop the lawsuit and wear T-shirts that say "The judge is a Dick".

I lean more toward the kids being dicks.

[pdg]

ALARM! When the students wore the shirts, principal Chris Kotis confined them to one classroom for as much as two weeks, canceling science and computer labs and banning them from after-school programs, the federal complaint said. He had warned them not to wear the T-shirts.

[Sean]

If somone with authority wrongs someone who does not have authority, there should be a mandatory legal case!

Kids on sports teams have the right to wear clothing and ornamentation that indicate their acheivments. You know, letters on jackets, pins on the letters, etc...

Why do the sports kids get to brag about their physical achievements, while the smarts kids can't?

[Drake Timbershaft]

I am personally guided by the belief that the framers of the bill of rights saw the right to freedom of speech as absolute for all adults at all times beyond the very narrow stipulation of inciting riots. Hate speech, obscenities, and insults are all "OK." There is absolutely no "right to not be offended by the statements of others" in the bill of rights.

That said, you're a kid in high school, and to be perfectly blunt those rules don't apply to you. You're not in high school to make a statement - political, religious, fashion, or otherwise. You're in high school to be a simple sponge; sit quietly, and soak up knowledge (which at that level consists of 99% rote memorization anyway). Dehumanizing, you say? Enacting an ugly homogenization of our youth? Perhaps. But to enact any semblence of efficiency schools are almost by definition incapable of catering to the whims of any minority of students, and anything but the most onerous burdens placed upon the verifiable beliefs or customs of students should be accepted without argument.

Sean, Who, what or where did anyone in the article compare to this sports? They had the shirts made and wore them in protest over a contest. This had nothing to do with sports at all. Read the freakin article before you make an attempt to turn it into something it has nothing to do with.

[Rusty]

I see Sean's point...is the rule the same for atheletes?
Are they banned from wearing a shirt that tells everyone they're on the team or does this just apply to the kids who excell academically? What about the cheerleaders? Are they banned from wearing their cheerleader uniforms or whatever they wear? What about the FFA (Future Farmers of America)? Can they not wear that blue couduroy jacket they're famous for?
And taking them and putting them in a room away from everyone else for two weeks...what's that all about.
(I read the article.)
And the judge questioning if they were harmed. Is he allowed to pick and choose the cases he thinks hold merit?

[csg]

This case does make a good case for a "Loser pays court costs" system. The only winners here are the lawyers.

[Sean, Torrington CT]

The school didn't like the 'gifties' word, because it goes with the 'tard' word. 'tards' are the average students, 'gifties' are the above-average students.

There is always tension between the 'gifties' and the 'tards' just like there is always tension between the 'nerds' and the 'jocks'.

But it looks like the tards got special treatment.

Rusty,

No. No/Yes. What about them? We wish they were! What about them? We hope they aren't! Wouldn't you like to lock everyone smarter than you in a room for two weeks?
Yes, dat's why he be da judge.

Glad to answer your questions for you.

[Oxhead]

I think these 'gifted' students are being petulant brats. That said, they have a case and no case involving free speech is trivial in my opinion.

Contrary to what one poster has written, high school students do have a right to free speech. I'm thinking specifically of the Supreme Court decision in the early 1970s that ruled a school in violation of the First Amendment for banning black armbands worn to protest the Vietnam War. Before someone says these t-shirts don't rise to that level of importance I should point out that the First Amendment doesn't establish levels of importance.

[Mongoloid_Dobbler]

Wow. What's up with all the anonymous dickery on these boards of late? These no-namers seem to have gotten a lot bitchier in the last few weeks. I'm all for snark, but sheesh, we're not exactly tackling the Weighty Issues here.

[Kghoti]

You can make a case either way depending on what you want the outcome to be.

Pro Principal:
While other groups are allowed to wear uniforms or t-shirts indicating that they belong to sports teams these are generally established, approved groups. For those of you who see this as a jock vs nerd debate please note that I feel safe in assuming that the principal would be fine with group t-shirts worn by the Latin Club, or the Debate, Forensics or Chess teams, but then again these are sanctioned approved groups.

What the Principal appears to find distasteful is that the "gifted" students are patently buying into the concept that anyone who isn't a "gifty" is a "tard." So if you aren't in the gifted program you aren't just normal, you're mentally challenged (sorry about the PC speak).

Pro Gifties
We have become much too sensitive to these types of slights. Get a life, they aren't hurting anyone who doesn't let them. It's just a t-shirt. It isn't vulgar, it doesn't fit the standard definition of "hate speech."

That being said, I'm pretty normal. I wasn't in the gifted program and I wasn't a jock.

I actually agree with the Principal on this, but only because I believe the Principal has the right to determine to a certain extent appropriate attire for his/her facility just as government offices and businesses make that determination for employees.

I also agree that this lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money and the losers should be forced to pay court costs for both parties. I don't protest the kids' right to appeal to the school board to overturn the principal's decision, but if the board supports the principal LET IT GO. Maybe you just aren't right. Besides even if you still think you are right the issue isn't so great that it should be taken to the court system at any level.

[rhubarb]

The children are in the care of the school system. The school has temporary custody of them. As Timbershaft said, they are there to be taught, not to clog the judicial system. I see this as a parent/lawyer who saw a payday and is exploiting the children.

[Big Kahuna]

I think that principals always have the "right" to determine that *anything* on clothing is "disruptive." Therefore, case over.

This is just an example of that license--broad an vague as it is.

I do think it's nuts--because it's no different any other group wearing a shirt with their club/sport/designation on it. After all, the school does have the gifted program so what's the big deal wearing a shirt that seems proud of that?

Background: I've always observed that if you are on the other side of the bell curve--not so smart--there are all kinds of special education classes and nets for you. In fact, I think they are "required by law." But the prevailing social attitude to the gifted seems to be not as much attention and, in this case, don't be proud of it or announce it in any way...(because it might make someone else "feel bad.").

[jsg]

The black armbands were clearly political speech, which touches the core of the first amendment. Here, it's not clear what the social value of the speech would be. So it is natural that restrictions on this kind of speech would not get the same kind of strict scrutiny. Students do have a right to free speech in school, so long as that speech does not interfere with the decorum or essential function of the institution. Here, the trial judge apparently bought the argument that the shirts would have a divisive impact that would hinder the school's ability to educate.

Also, the design for their t-shirt is _retarded_.

[Oxhead]

Kghoti,

I can't think of anything worse than setting a precedent whereby losers in a civil rights case, spurious as their complaint may seem to us, pay court costs if they lose.

And I don't think ANY free speech issue can "clog" the court system. Every single case like this, trivial as it may seem, enhances American justice by shaping, expanding, and maybe even (regrettably, but inevitably sometimes) restricting, our protections under the Constitution.

If the kids lose this case, and I think they should, it nonetheless makes me proud to think I live in a society that encourages them to fight for their rights. I hope they appeal.

Aside...

Whatever happened to the kid who was punished for wearing a "Pepsi" shirt to school on the principal's designated "Coke" day to encourage Coca Cola to put their soda machines in the school?

[timbodanavajo]

As a graphic artist i say their design sucked and its no surprise their t-shirt design lost the competition. As a former gifted student I say they are usually lacking in other respects like social interaction. Couldn't they have thought to include the whole school in their design.

[Oxhead]

jsg,

You're right, the black armbands were indubitably political. That doesn't negate the contention in this case that the "Gifty" shirts convey protected speech. This is a case for the courts to work out. Personally, I hope it works out to the principal's advantage, but nevertheless I do not feel this is a frivilous suit. I also feel the judge's comments were ignorant.

[Rusty]

Anon,

Thanks for the feedback...the only problem I have with locking the smarter people in a room for two weeks is someone might ask me something i don't know and I will forget where I put the key!

Mongoloid,

I have noticed a lot of 'anonymous' posting lately...I guess it's okay as long as no one is making personal attacks.

Timbodanavajo,

You're right...their design did suck!

[snark]

Rusty,

You are welcome for the feedback, and thanks for the fun with the poetry. How about we split the difference and share the Guiness record?

Mongoloid,

What's with the whining about anonymous posting? At least the anonymous posters (I'm not the only one) stick to the topic. Your post added nothing to the discussion, just a "boo-hoo, people aren't using screen names." Really, it's not like it's a 'Weighty Issue'. Personally, I'd rather have anonymous posters with content to their posts, than screen name users just bitching about anonymous posters. But that's just me I guess.

I'm not usually one to advocate violence, but those "Gifties" need a good pounding.

proudly anonymous

[Mikey]

I’ve really enjoyed reading the posts on this one. Regardless of what your particular opinion is on this matter, it has been a good, spirited forum on the first amendment, the legal system and kids. Where do I stand?

1: Well, I support the Bill of Rights.
2: I generally despise trial lawyers as a necessary evil.
3: My observations of school officials is that many are merely grown up hall monitors who couldn’t hold a job outside of the school system.
4: These kids are elitists, though they do not realize they are acting in a primal, tribal manner, indicating an extreme limitation to their intelligence.

Everyone seems to missing a basic point. “Gifted”… really? If their intelligence is truly a gift, then bragging is silly, isn’t it? Most folks with any semblance of dignity will boast only of their accomplishments, not something that was handed to them without merit. High, or low intelligence is the luck of the gene pool draw. Boasting is a pitiful human method of maintaining self esteem, a mental King of The Hill game that we all play to some extent… to feel that we are better than other people.

Some of these kids will achieve much; some will get kicked to the curb by the reality of life that says this: “Despite the fact you have double doctorates, you will function with the rest of society, or you will deliver pizzas.” Like the doctor who performed, (attempted to) the emissions inspection on my car once. My IQ is extremely high. I won’t say what I score, because it’s only an also-mention, (if that) about who I am and what I bring to the rest of the world. I am always appalled by boasting academics. And that is all we really have here. Pathetically naïve intellectuals. Their whining is music to my ears.

[madam pince]

I'm with the judge -- this isn't a case of kids being denied essential rights. They're acting like entitled brats, and the judge is right to question the point of such a frivolous lawsuit. This kind of stuff is cluttering the legal system and slowing down cases with actual merit.

[Kghoti]

Oxhead
I suppose we have a difference of opinion here.

I see this as a dress code issue, you see it as a speech issue.

On the other hand, if I look at it as a freedom of speech issue, I still end up in the same place. Highschool is a place where freedom of speech is still limited. The highschool newspaper is much more limited in the stories it can print than a college paper, which is more limited than a non-school paper. The editor, principal and school board have ultimate say in what can be printed. I've had more than one article not approved and others edited for content before print.

It IS important for the principal and board to be as sane as possible in the decisions they make and it is important that parents review their decisions.

In this case I don't see that the decision of the principal is outrageous. The students are merely subject to a decision that they don't like and have taken it to court. I hope the court determines that they're being dramatic, as highschool students often are and throws out the case.

[Kghoti]

Sigh...I promise to try not to be so long winded in the future.

[Michael Brandt]

[By Michael Brandt, one of the representative plaintiffs of a class action against the Chicago Public Schools over infringed first amendment rights.]

At Beaubien Elementary, there was a vote for an official class shirt design in 2003 in which the entire eighth grade (one gifted class, two regular classes) took part. I submitted a design of a goofy-looking kid giving a thumbs up, drawn with an ironically self-deprecating style. Though far from “high art,” the shirt was the most popular design within my gifted class.

Questions about the fairness of the election arose, and when they went unanswered, many in the gifted class became suspicious. To protest the questionable voting process, and because we preferred a shirt designed with more character than the official class shirt, we the gifted students decided to make a shirt special for our class.

Before a new design for our shirt had been finalized, our principal came to our room and told us that we absolutely couldn’t wear the shirt we were planning to make. The only answer to “why not?” was that our original design had lost the election. Nevertheless, we saw that our shirt was making a statement protected by the first amendment and prohibited by nothing other than the principal’s arbitrary rule.

When we finally wore the shirt, our punishment was harsh and vindictive: we weren’t allowed to go to the gym, science, or computer labs, many of our teachers treated us like delinquents, we couldn’t go to the bathroom while wearing the shirt, and we were threatened with five to seven day suspensions should we wear the shirt again. Shortly after, the principal was told by the CPS Law Department that he was wrong to obstruct us from wearing the shirt, unless there was some safety concern.

And so he invented a safety concern, in order to continue to confine us. Overnight, the reason we couldn’t wear the shirt drifted from “your design did not win” to “the design on the shirt is inflammatory, so we have to confine you for your safety.” The principle went so far as to liken our behavior to that of gangs and suggest that our actions could instigate riots. His claims were weak in credibility but powerful in effect; in a post-Columbine school atmosphere, who dares to raise his hand and say that an administrator’s authority should ever be curtailed on issues of safety?

The details of what happened are trivial except for this last one: an authority figure invented a safety issue in order to squelch freedom of speech. Besides showing the safety issue was imaginary, our primary legal obstacle is whether we, as 14-year olds, had free speech rights. The federal judge in our case has ruled that, at this stage, we have sufficiently established our claim that our free speech was violated.

So what harm was done when we were prevented from wearing our shirt? Well, what harm was done when the government censored the NY Times Op-Ed page a month ago (the White House successfully pressured the CIA pre-publication board to censor dozens of key lines of an op-ed critical of the administration’s policies on Iran)? To take it even further, what harm was done when a certain bus passenger in Montgomery, Alabama was told to get to the back of the bus?

I understand that compared to censorship in the NY Times or the Civil Rights Movement, our fuss over a shirt was a “kid-issue.” Don’t confuse that with “trivial,” though. We all were kids at the time - the things that seemed big to us were, inevitably, kid issues. I’m not pretending that our shirt bears an iota of the significance of the op-ed or Rosa Parks’s bus seat. The fact is, though, there is a striking similarity in each of these cases of civil rights: the oppressed in each situation drew a line, saying an issue was significant enough that they were not willing to sit idly by while their rights were usurped.

What keeps our democracy vital is the people who ensure that the rights and ideals granted by the Constitution play a role in every corner of politics. If kids aren’t taught to think democratically about “kid issues,” how are they as adults expected to think democratically about “adult issues?” Unlike eligibility to vote, deep understanding of civil liberties does not automatically come at age 18. Civil rights aren’t something to just reflect about on Martin Luther King Jr. Day; public schools have an obligation to foster a democratic attitude in the mind of each and every student.

[E]

Michael Brandt - how can you be so outraged that "many of our teachers treated us like delinquents," & still not notice that you were, in fact, breaking the rules and therefore qualified as delinquent?

I hope you don't try to push the envelope in medical school or whereever you wind-up. Not art school ... that is for certain.

[ReginaFilangee]

People like Michael are embraced by medical school. :-)

Wow, talk about an article being necroed!!