Okay, so maybe my headline is a little sensationalistic. After all, I’ve agreed on numerous occasions with school administrators who have the right to define what is and isn’t acceptable in schools as far as clothing with political or social messages on it.

This case isn’t as troubling for the end result (a student wearing a shirt saying homosexuality is shameful) but for its total straddling the fence of morality on an issue. If you think about it, the school is now allowed to promote “tolerance” for homosexuality but students are not allowed to dissent. The ruling itself isn’t offensive, but the wording of it is quite illogical:

“Public school students who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the majority opinion.

We’ve now criminalized by way of a court decision any opposition to homosexuality. Now, seeing as this is San Francisco, do you think all the gay students in the public schools don’t wear any gay pride rainbow flags to class? If calling homosexuality shameful is a verbal assault on those who are homosexual, isn’t wearing a shirt supporting the right to be gay a verbal assault on those rare people in San Francisco religious enough to be uncomfortable with homosexuality by the very language of the court’s decision?

I tend to think so.

As I’ve stated numerous times here, schools do have a right to decide on dress codes and clothing with political and social messages. That’s really not disputable, as its been almost universally affirmed in challenge after challenge that schools have a right to eliminate anything that would be a hindrance to the educational process. What really offends me, though, is that they’ve selectively said a student can’t wear a shirt that disputes homosexuality and its embracing at school, but the school can have programs geared toward teaching “tolerance” on the very same subject.

There was one dissent, and it seems to fall in line with my philosophies quite nicely:

Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented, called the case “difficult and troubling.” But he suggested that students dealt with Harper’s T-shirt by discussing it without physical violence and possibly learned an important lesson on dealing with people who hold opposing views.

Opposing views? On homosexuality?

Absolutely unacceptable and they must be silenced, preferably by judges in a courtroom.

Sounds like selective and arbitrary morality to me.

via Tongue Tied

Technorati Tags: homosexuality, tolerance