Teen suspended for religious nose ring

[zomgwtf]

What about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

Can I bring a light-sabre to class? Even if it breaks the dress code? I mean this one IS recognized. We all know that Jedi can't leave home without their lightsabre.

 

[Evo]

But first it has to be recognized as a religion. Unless it is, all arguments based on religious equity are completely moot. Full stop.

Dave, I think you are confusing being tax exempt by the IRS under section 501(C)(3). Are you saying that a religion has to have US Tax exemption in order to be recognized? There are actually no US rules that I can find on what makes a religion "recognized", just rules for tax exemption.

According to what I read in the article, apparently this "religion" is tax exempt. It really doesn't take much to qualify.

 

[Chi Meson]

Ah. I see the problem, and it is me.

...

The rest of our exchange followed from that mistake of mine. All rescinded. Apologies zomgwtf.

Well now you will NEVER be a pundit!

 

[Chi Meson]

Here's the "ring."
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Nikki-Iacono-left-and-daughter-Ariana-Iacono-14-pose-photograph/photo//100916/480/urn_publicid_ap_org7a36133f126448019de353a56fd996a4//s:/ap/us_rel_piercing_church
And if it is really the tiny stud that the school is fretting over then, it must be down south.

yep.

I was picturing an actual "ring" as in through the nose, like a bull. It's a stud.

I still say the "Church" is bogus and detracts from her cause. I also still hold (I'm a HS teacher remember) that when 2000+ students are watched over by 100- adults (and about half of them are useless in maintaining order), things go much easier when there are clearly defined lines.

I believe that there are grey areas everywhere in every consideration (Ayn Rand is quite wrong there), but when there are so many minors, so close together, you must maintain a line. An "anything goes" philosophy works fine in smaller settings, like those great "unschooling" schools with 25 students and 3 teachers.

That being said, you also need to pick your battles, and if this is the line the school pursued, then everything else must be Hunky Dory? I wish our school had the luxury of "Problem: Nose Ring!"

 

[zomgwtf]

I'm just gnna say I do believe it's completely rediculous that this girl can claim religious freedom in wearing her nose piercing but I think it's only fair.

I do not think that the government has the right to get involved in what is or is not a religion. I mean it's their fault for setting it up in such a way that it's so easy to be taken advantage of. (not saying that's what this girl is doing) In my opinion there should be no special exemptions given to any religion. No political correctness should be given to any religion either. People can be free to believe what they want to believe that's a fundamental right, we're not going to start invoking thought crimes and such. That's as far as it should go though. Muslims shouldn't be allowed to wear religious garments in school and neither should the rest of the religions if it's against the rules. If they want they are MORE than welcome to set up their OWN school board with their OWN rules and send their kids there.

However, I find it completely rediculous that this girl is not allowed to have a nose piercing anyways. Do they also ban tattoes? What about ear piercings are those allowed?

 

[Gokul43201]

No. OK, my friend invented the 'don't do homework assignments' religion, not me. Now I can claim etc. etc. '

That is a related, but different argument. My point was specifically that the stated argument was moot.

But really, I don't see how a 'don't do homework' religion that someone invented is all that much worse than a 'women should be subservient to their husbands' religion that someone else invented, or a 'xyz belongs to a lower caste than abc' religion that yet someone else did.

Organizations are not obliged to recognize something a religion just because someone says so.

No, they are not. They only recognize religions that have enough people as adherents that it would hurt their interests to antagonize a large bloc of the market/electorate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, a 'witty' sound bite. I'm convinced!

Wow! You're easy.

How do you figure it doesn't matter? The following two are very, very different things:

1. Opposing the legality of dress codes
2. Expanding the scope of the freedom of religion clause

Rallying behind someone pushing for the second doesn't do anything for the first.

It is a matter of the greater imperative. Given the most significant argument of personal rights, the latter becomes moot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fallacy is in presenting this argument as a function of truth. No one can prove that any religious beliefs are fact, but that doesn't matter. It is a more basic question of liberty. Do we have the right to live and believe as we each see fit, or not [provided that we don't violate someone else's rights]?

If I wish to believe that frogs are holy, do I have that right or not?

 

[Office_Shredder]

If I wish to believe that frogs are holy, do I have that right or not?

Does that give you the right to bring a toad to school for the purpose of licking to get high? Probably not

 

[zomgwtf]

Does that give you the right to bring a toad to school for the purpose of licking to get high? Probably not

So why can schools pick and choose which religious beliefs are able to be adhered to in the school? This seems extremely unfair to the minority beliefs.

As well people really need to quit dragging it off course. We're talking specifically about dress codes not getting high or murdering people.

If his religion to do with frogs being holy required him to wear a dried out frog as a necklace does the school have the right to say no? (I've seen someone wearing this on the bus it was the most freaky thing I have ever seen and it was freaking HUGE)

 

[Evo]

So why can schools pick and choose which religious beliefs are able to be adhered to in the school? This seems extremely unfair to the minority beliefs.

The issue is not about discriminating between religions. The issue is that nose jewelry is against the school's dress code. The student is protesting saying that she is exempt from the dress code because of her religion. Of course that is bogus, the school doesn't disallow her from having her nose pierced, she just can't wear jewelry in her nose while in school, just like every other student is prohibited.

 

[Hurkyl]

It is a matter of the greater imperative. Given the most significant argument of personal rights, the latter becomes moot.

Huh?

 

[zomgwtf]

The issue is not about descriminating between religions. The issue is that nose jewelry is against the school's dress code. The student is protesting saying that she is exempt from the dress code because of her religion. Of course that is bogus, the school doesn't disallow her from having her nose pierced, she just can't wear jewelry in her nose while in school, just like every other student is prohibited.

Not true, the articles state that it would have been different had she been Muslim or Hindu.

 

[Evo]

Not true, the articles state that it would have been different had she been Muslim or Hindu.

That's what she claims, but that's not the grounds on which her complaint is based with the ACLU. So it's not the issue.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, I think you are confusing being tax exempt by the IRS under section 501(C)(3). Are you saying that a religion has to have US Tax exemption in order to be recognized? There are actually no US rules that I can find on what makes a religion "recognized"...

That's kind of my point. If there are no rules claiming anyone has to recognize it as a religion, then no one is breaking any rules by not recognizing it so.

The question then becomes: why does anyone have to recognize any belief system as a relgion?

At some point, someone has to define what is a religion from what isn't.

 

[Evo]

That's kind of my point. If there are no rules claiming anyone has to recognize it as a religion, then no one is breaking any rules by not recognizing it so.

The question then becomes: why does anyone have to recognize any belief system as a relgion?

At some point, someone has to define what is a religion from what isn't.

I would agree with you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Huh?

1). When we violate basic liberties, we create problems like this one.

2). The answer to this problem is, there is no logically consistent argument that can applied here => See rule one

 

[Hurkyl]

1). When we violate basic liberties, we create problems like this one.

For the sake of this particular mini-argument, I have no problem assuming that dress codes violate basic liberties.

But I cannot see how that has any relevance towards your support of expanding the scope of the freedom of religion clause.

2). The answer to this problem is, there is no logically consistent argument that can applied here => See rule one

I can make even less sense of this than I could your previous post.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the sake of this particular mini-argument, I have no problem assuming that dress codes violate basic liberties.

But I cannot see how that has any relevance towards your support of expanding the scope of the freedom of religion clause.

I believe Ivan's argument is that he would rather support expanding the scope of the separation clause, than support violating basic liberties through dress codes.

From me: I don't believe anyone here has made explicit what the present scope of the freedom of religion clause is. Would you?

 

[leroyjenkens]

I don't think our founding fathers took into consideration that some rituals or customs associated with certain religions would break any laws or rules.

 

[Hurkyl]

I believe Ivan's argument is that he would rather support expanding the scope of the separation clause, than support violating basic liberties through dress codes.

It is?

If so, it would be a fallacy of the excluded middle -- one has the option of opposing (or just being agnostic towards) both dress codes and the cause this girl/the media is trying to push.

But Ivan already rejected that option.

From me: I don't believe anyone here has made explicit what the present scope of the freedom of religion clause is. Would you?

I don't have the training.

My argument with Ivan so far hasn't gotten past pure principle -- the specific extent of the scope is too fine of a detail to be relevant.


Incidentally, I get the impression that most of the people in the thread think that this situation is beyond the scope, or are trying to defend the cartoon that everything should be covered. But if someone were to make a passably coherent, non-cartoonish argument that this situation is covered, I probably wouldn't have much to say one way or the other on the argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't have the training.

Let me try a different question, if you'll humor me. I gather from your earlier post that you consider the CoBM to lie outside the scope of a religion that the Constitution protects. Why?

 

[cristo]

There is clearly a reason for the school to impose this rule (maybe health and safety). I don't see why the first amendment would trump such a practical reason.

 

[Hurkyl]

Let me try a different question, if you'll humor me. I gather from your earlier post that you consider the CoBM to lie outside the scope of a religion that the Constitution protects. Why?

A combination of "I know it when I see it" and the compelling similarity to the jokes that went around in my youth about founding a religion that preaches X just so you could claim religious freedom whenever anyone else says not X.

It's enough to satisfy myself. It's not enough to be relevant to any deep discussion on the issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is clearly a reason for the school to impose this rule (maybe health and safety). I don't see why the first amendment would trump such a practical reason.

Umm, the Constitution trumps EVERYTHING. Going by the case law (see, for example Tinker v. Des Moines) the school would have to demonstrate a good reason (health related reasons, for instance) for regulating freedom of expression.

 

[DaveC426913]

... the school would have to demonstrate a good reason (health related reasons, for instance) for regulating freedom of expression.

They regulate freedom of expression every day - with dress codes.

 

[Chi Meson]

I personally regulated one young fella's freedom of expression when he told me to "F off" right in my face, right after I interfered with his freedom of free assembly when I told him and the rest of the clot that were blocking my classroom door to move along.

 

[Evo]

I personally regulated one young fella's freedom of expression when he told me to "F off" right in my face, right after I interfered with his freedom of free assembly when I told him and the rest of the clot that were blocking my classroom door to move along.

Obviously schools must have dress codes. Many schools have banned gang related clothing, even banning things like shoes with Nike and other popular logos (read that the other day). I mean, I might not want to wear shoes in public places, but most places don't allow you in if you are barefoot.

 

[Gokul43201]

They regulate freedom of expression every day - with dress codes.

And many dress codes have been successfully challenged and overturned by courts.

If challenged, the school would have to demonstrate that their choice of dress code is based on their ability to "reasonably forecast that the student expression [beyond that code] would cause substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or would invade the rights of others".

A more lenient test is sometimes used by courts, which requires only that the purpose of the specific dress code may be anything that is shown to be promoting the common good, so long as it is not specifically aimed at restricting free expression.

See, for example: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes_uniforms

 

[Char. Limit]

Obviously schools must have dress codes. Many schools have banned gang related clothing, even banning things like shoes with Nike and other popular logos (read that the other day). I mean, I might not want to wear shoes in public places, but most places don't allow you in if you are barefoot.

To be honest, I don't know why you'd ban logos, unless you were a total snob school... my school was very liberal about that. Probably because there were no real gangs in Spokane Valley. You could wear pretty much anything in my wardrobe.

 

[Astronuc]

There is clearly a reason for the school to impose this rule (maybe health and safety). I don't see why the first amendment would trump such a practical reason.

I believe it is primarily a matter of the administration (adults) imposing on students conformity to an arbitrary and specious rule (adolescents or children). It seems to be an example of the age-old authoritarianism, as was the case when I went to school.

On the other hand, I imagine the appeal to religion is equally specious.

I doubt a nose ring is distracting to the function of learning in the classroom.

We had to deal with non-uniform dress codes when I was in junior and senior high schools. Each school had its own dress code, and some were more tolerant of long hair on males than others - some schools (mine) allowed, others prohibited it - and the later might suspend a male student for long hair. One of my university mates had to wear a short hair wig to conceal his long hair.

 

[Evo]

I believe it is primarily a matter of the administration (adults) imposing on students conformity to an arbitrary and specious rule (adolescents or children). It seems to be an example of the age-old authoritarianism, as was the case when I went to school.

I can definitely see the need for dress codes in a school. One kid is wearing something that another kid makes a derogatory comment about, another kid steps in, then more. You just do not need to add that kind of potential conflict into a group of kids that are there for an education. A school is not the place where a kid needs to show off their individual clothing and jewelry.

 

[JaredJames]

OK, can someone clarify for me (not being from the US), what does the Freedom of Religion section of the amendment actually cover?

Is it simply that people are allowed to believe what they want? Or does it, as I suspect it doesn't, say that people are allowed to practice any religion they want, and carry out any practices relating?

If it does say the latter, where do you draw the line? If my new religion said I was allowed to take illegal substances and had to sacrifice someone during a full moon, would that be accepted and protected? If that isn't protected by Freedom of Religion, why do other laws / rules trump these situations but not that of the nose ring?

Telling someone they can't wear a nose ring because it is against the rules of the school would then be no more unconstitutional than telling someone they can't take drugs.

I know they are on slightly different ends of the spectrum so far as doing wrong goes, but they are still using the same Freedom of Religion.

Can someone clarify this point to me?

 

[Astronuc]

I can definitely see the need for dress codes in a school. One kid is wearing something that another kid makes a derogatory comment about, another kid steps in, then more. You just do not need to add that kind of potential conflict into a group of kids that are there for an education. A school is not the place where a kid needs to show off their individual clothing and jewelry.

I really don't the students cared much about what people wore - at least not at my school. There was occasionaly conflicts between social groups - but not about dress.

We did have a crack down on girls wearing short skirts, short shorts and halter tops. I was only mildly distracted when the girl one seat ahead of me in the row to my right would lean forward and expose her left breast. I couldn't help but look because to see the teath or the chalk board, I had to look in that direction. I didn't mind, and she'd just smile. She was quite attractive and popular, so I figured she had a boyfriend, so I didn't think about her.

 

[Astronuc]

OK, can someone clarify for me (not being from the US), what does the Freedom of Religion section of the amendment actually cover?

Is it simply that people are allowed to believe what they want? Or does it, as I suspect it doesn't, say that people are allowed to practice any religion they want, and carry out any practices relating?

If it does say the latter, where do you draw the line? If my new religion said I was allowed to take illegal substances and had to sacrifice someone during a full moon, would that be accepted and protected? If that isn't protected by Freedom of Religion, why do other laws / rules trump these situations but not that of the nose ring?

Telling someone they can't wear a nose ring because it is against the rules of the school would then be no more unconstitutional than telling someone they can't take drugs.

I know they are on slightly different ends of the spectrum so far as doing wrong goes, but they are still using the same Freedom of Religion.

Can someone clarify this point to me?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is subject to interpretation by the courts, and it could be repealed if a certain majority voted to do so.

 

[Jack21222]

I think one key point of this thread is that dress codes are often set aside for religious purposes. We had a "no hats" rule when I was in high school, but Jews were allowed to wear their yarmulkes.

Whether or not using drugs is protected by religion is completely irrelevant to this thread. Exceptions to school dress codes are ALREADY ALLOWED for religious purpose.

It only boils down to what is a religion, and who gets to determine it. Any talk about drugs or murder is completely off topic.

 

[Char. Limit]

I think one key point of this thread is that dress codes are often set aside for religious purposes. We had a "no hats" rule when I was in high school, but Jews were allowed to wear their yarmulkes.

Whether or not using drugs is protected by religion is completely irrelevant to this thread. Exceptions to school dress codes are ALREADY ALLOWED for religious purpose.

It only boils down to what is a religion, and who gets to determine it. Any talk about drugs or murder is completely off topic.

The CoBM is an established church in America, and she claims to belong to it. That's good enough for me.

 

[JaredJames]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is subject to interpretation by the courts, and it could be repealed if a certain majority voted to do so.

OK, so what the section of the above I see affecting this situation I have highlighted. Aside from that area, there is no other way this violates this ruling.

Now it does say it is open to the interpretation of the courts. Which I see could produce one of the following outcomes:

1) The court agree she can wear the nose ring, but would then have to grant that right to all other religions in order to avoid discrimination against other religions (leaving only those who do not conform to a religion to follow the dress code - discriminating against non-religious types? Or would they simply say hang the dress code for everyone?)
2) The court decide she cannot wear the nose ring on the grounds of religion and therefore must adhere to the dress code. This ruling would also have to be extended to all other religious groups to avoid discrimination. (Everyone ends up following the dress code, all is fair).

Personally, option 2 is the most straight forward and presents the least problems as far as I'm concerned.

Just as a side note:
It says "and it could be repealed if a certain majority voted to do so.", which means the constitution can be overturned if the majority want it. Just thought I'd bring this up as it has come up in a number of threads regarding 'majority rule' with people saying the constitution cannot be simply overturned because the majority of the population want it - which it clearly can be as it says here. Also, it shows that majority rule could overthrow this section of the constitution and then allow congress to create a law banning burqas - again, from another thread but this shows that the majority can vote to change the constitution and so ban the burqa, and by doing so they make it perfectly legal and not against the constitutional rights of anyone - because they've changed them.

 

[Evo]

The CoBM is an established church in America, and she claims to belong to it. That's good enough for me.

Good enough for what? You think that dress codes should not apply universally to all students equally or that they should? Should we abolish all religion affiliated trappings from *PUBLIC* schools? Religion has no place in a tax payer funded public school and a person's religion should not trump school rules, if we really want to follow separation of church and state. Of course, that's how I personally feel about it.

 

[JaredJames]

Good enough for what? You think that dress codes should not apply universally to all students equally or that they should? Should we abolish all religion affiliated trappings from PUBLIC schools? Religion has no place in a tax payer funded public school and a person's religion should not trump school rules.

Exactly, as I showed above. To rule religions can be allowed to override rules such as dress code simply discriminates against non-religious. But that's ok of course because the constitution allows it.

 

[Evo]

Exactly, as I showed above. To rule religions can be allowed to override rules such as dress code simply discriminates against non-religious. But that's ok of course because the constitution allows it.

Exactly, to allow a child to say "rules don't apply to me" because they claim some special religious status is wrong.

 

[Astronuc]

Good enough for what? You think that dress codes should not apply universally to all students equally or that they should? Should we abolish all religion affiliated trappings from *PUBLIC* schools? Religion has no place in a tax payer funded public school and a person's religion should not trump school rules, if we really want to follow separation of church and state. Of course, that's how I personally feel about it.

But *PUBLIC* schools is an extension of the government, and case law has extended the prohibition of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' to local and state governments.

The one must determine if this is the case, and whether or not there is an actual case of infringement.

I was also informed when I was a high school student that students (children, or those not legally adults) were not endowed with the rights as specified in the US Constitution, i.e., the rights applied to adults, not children. I believe case law has changed that somewhat in 4 decades.

 

[Char. Limit]

Good enough for what? You think that dress codes should not apply universally to all students equally or that they should? Should we abolish all religion affiliated trappings from *PUBLIC* schools? Religion has no place in a tax payer funded public school and a person's religion should not trump school rules, if we really want to follow separation of church and state. Of course, that's how I personally feel about it.

I think that by and large, dress codes should be abolished. This is my opinion and doesn't need to be cited.

 

[Evo]

But *PUBLIC* schools is an extension of the government, and case law has extended the prohibition of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' to local and state governments.

Following a dress code is not prohibiting her practicing her religion in this case. As I pointed out earlier, the school is not prohibiting her from having her nose pierced, it is prohibiting the wearing of jewelry in her nose, which I would I bet my life on is *not* specified that she must do. It's not the "Church of Body Jewelry". If it was, then she might have a case for demanding special treatment.

Jared has a very good point. The law that allows special treatment and exemptions for people practicing their 'religion' should extend equally to the non-religious, it is discriminating against those that choose not to follow a religion, something that the 'Founding Fathers" failed to recognize. It's time to throw this religious exemption out because it now discriminates against those that choose to practice no religion.

Here is a couple destined for each other.

Her

Him

[PLAIN]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5513/tatoosvn3.jpg

 

[Jack21222]

Following a dress code is not prohibiting her practicing her religion in this case. As I pointed out earlier, the school is not prohibiting her from having her nose pierced, it is prohibiting the wearing of jewelry in her nose, which I would I bet my life on is *not* specified that she must do. It's not the "Church of Body Jewelry". If it was, then she might have a case for demanding special treatment.

It probably depends on the sect of CoBMism. You know those holy texts can be interpreted in different ways.

 

[Pythagorean]

More stupid than trying to pass piercings as religion is that there's a dress code enforced in the first place.

 

[rootX]

People go to school so that at one moment they can join workforce. At workplace the unprofessional dress code is not appropriate. Seeing school and workplace as synonymous of each other, I believe that schools should have authority to enforce a dress code. In addition, one of the jobs of the schools is to prepare students for the workplaces.

 

[Pythagorean]

People go to school so that at one moment they can join workforce. At workplace the unprofessional dress code is not appropriate.

That's two generalizations in a row. None of the researchers or professors I know adhere to a strict dress code. Some professors dress nicer than others, but to correlate it with the professor's competence at school of science would be... out of place. These are really some of the least judgmental people I've ever met in my life... especially in Alaska, where everyone wears carrharts, always have knives on them, and women regularly own chainsaws and guns, while being part of a productive space physics research group (that must have sounded like a joke, but it wasn't).

Seeing school and workplace as synonymous of each other..

I was a teenager once, I worked at fast food joints. I adhered to the dress codes. It wasn't a big, dramatic, life changing event to all the sudden have to wear the same outfit for eight hours a day.

I worked on commercial fishing boats where no amount of school or "professional dress code" is going to make you a quality crew member.

I now do research and schooling at the same university (no dress code, obviously, my customers are more interested in whether the research itself is productive).

[sarcasm]
Maybe dress codes should be a class for a special class of people who
a) are going into a type of profession that requires a dress code in the first place
AND
b) are somehow incompetent or emotionally unstable and will fail in life because they can't dress appropriately.[/sarcasm]

And I'll stop ranting now, thanks

 

[Chi Meson]

More stupid than trying to pass piercings as religion is that there's a dress code enforced in the first place.

If you spent some time being part of about 50 adults who are in charge of, and responsible for, 2000+ students (everything from gangstas to corporate exectutives' kids), I think you might reverse the order of which is more stupid.

High school especially is the place where "the slippery slope" is not a fallacy. A certain percentage of the kids push the limits of acceptability on a daily basis, to see how much they can get away with.

I've seen girls come in wearing sheer blouses or skirts with highly visible underwear underneath. Guys come in with shirts emblazoned with "YOU SUCK!" or worse, on the front (these guys make a point of moving to the front seat of a class for the occasion). Hats, headbands, shoestrings, rags are indeed used as gang symbols which are then used to deliberately incite the "other guys."

We had a no hat rule instilled a few years ago, and so the gangstas (and the wannabes) would carry them in their hands. I was teaching a "foundations" class two years ago, when there was a thump at the window by the door. A red hat was pressed to the glass whereupon one of my students jumped up and ran to the door yelling "M*****F******N*****" etc.

At the other end of the scale, there are the "precious darlings" I get in the honors classes who are working on their lingerie modeling career. I have to look at these people, and if looking toward one side of a class means I have to see a 5/7th exposed breast, that does affect how I teach. I would say something like " that's not appropriate for school." Her: "What's not appropriate?" (forcing me to say it, you see?) About once a year I get the line: "well why are you staring at me there?"

A dress code is absolutely necessary. A line must be drawn in the sand. No, not sand, the line is on the iciest and steepest of slippery slopes.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you spent some time being part of about 50 adults who are in charge of, and responsible for, 2000+ students (everything from gangstas to corporate exectutives' kids), I think you might reverse the order of which is more stupid.

High school especially is the place where "the slippery slope" is not a fallacy. A certain percentage of the kids push the limits of acceptability on a daily basis, to see how much they can get away with.

I've seen girls come in wearing sheer blouses or skirts with highly visible underwear underneath. Guys come in with shirts emblazoned with "YOU SUCK!" or worse, on the front (these guys make a point of moving to the front seat of a class for the occasion). Hats, headbands, shoestrings, rags are indeed used as gang symbols which are then used to deliberately incite the "other guys."

We had a no hat rule instilled a few years ago, and so the gangstas (and the wannabes) would carry them in their hands. I was teaching a "foundations" class two years ago, when there was a thump at the window by the door. A red hat was pressed to the glass whereupon one of my students jumped up and ran to the door yelling "M*****F******N*****" etc.

At the other end of the scale, there are the "precious darlings" I get in the honors classes who are working on their lingerie modeling career. I have to look at these people, and if looking toward one side of a class means I have to see a 5/7th exposed breast, that does affect how I teach. I would say something like " that's not appropriate for school." Her: "What's not appropriate?" (forcing me to say it, you see?) About once a year I get the line: "well why are you staring at me there?"

A dress code is absolutely necessary. A line must be drawn in the sand. No, not sand, the line is on the iciest and steepest of slippery slopes.

I have only taught two semesters of college students.

I don't know how you define "kid" but these are 18 to mid-20's. They talk about booze and drugs, they curse, and there was one particular girl one of the semesters who dressed skimpy and batted her eyes at me and what not a lot. I simply ignored her behavior and saw past it.

Now, girls under 18 years old I could understand making one uncomfortable, if it's high school you're talking about, but I truly was focused on the nose ring and was imagining everyone wearing the same uniform when I ranted about dress codes (or strict codes that enforce m-colored slacks and a q-colored shirts). I wasn't looking at the opposite extreme: a minimal clothing requirement.

Gangsters aren't a real problem in Alaska, so I concede to that as well out of ignorance, but seriously, how does face jewelry come in?