A middle-schooler wearing a shirt proclaiming that “There Are Only Two Genders” was pulled from class by the school administration and told he couldn’t return unless he changed his shirt because the wording could “make students feel unsafe.” The boy politely refused, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) blurb, and returned sometime later with a shirt stating, “There Are Censored Genders.” Again, he was forbidden to wear the shirt. The whole thing is legitimately sophomoric, except the smirking middle schooler is more in the right than his overeducated educators. This is not to say he’s anything other than a snot, but snottery is the sole occupation of pubescent males. No, the adults should have handled this better because it was toward the adults that his shirt was directed.
Rick Sobey writes for the Boston Herald:
A local middle schooler who was banned from wearing an “only two genders” shirt to school will be the focus of a federal appeals court hearing, which could have major implications for student free speech.
Middleboro student Liam Morrison, now in 8th grade, last year was barred by school officials from wearing a shirt to school that read, “There are only two genders.” The 7th grader then wore a shirt that stated, “There are censored genders,” and again, he was ordered to take off the shirt.
Liam, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom and Massachusetts Family Institute, filed a federal free speech lawsuit in the wake of the shirt controversy last year.
After the U.S. district judge ruled in favor of the Middleboro school officials, Liam’s case is now heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston on Thursday.
The Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are asking the appeals court to rule that Nichols Middle School violated the First Amendment when school officials stopped Liam from wearing his shirts to school. They’re arguing that the school’s dress code policy is unconstitutional and discriminates against students based on the viewpoint they express.
“Students don’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building,” said ADF Senior Counsel and VP of U.S. Litigation David Cortman, who will be arguing before the court on Thursday.
The school district is in the wrong here in its reaction, though one must sympathize with trying to maintain any standards of decent in an age where pajama pants are considered suitable for church. The school dress code reads, “Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.” The code also forbids slovenliness and revealing clothing — though inconstant enforcement is more often the issue with these policies, and we have no idea how often other infractions are checked. Dress codes are a lose-lose, and teachers often have to pick up the slack for parents unwilling to check their children’s outfits at the door. Also, rhetorically speaking, the young man would be better off saying there are two sexes. Playing in the sophistic sandbox of gender terminology is ceding ground to ever-changing madness.
To conclude, graphic tees are stupid and kids should wear uniforms to school. Does the kid have the right to say and wear what’s on his shirt? Yes. Should he be wearing that shirt to school? No. There’s been a cottage industry of edgelord T-shirts since the early 1960s — it was probably hippie nonsense. Ever since then, the public has been treated to chest billboards. They’re great; love to see them. Nonetheless, in a school setting, tees are childish and detract from the instruction ostensibly occurring in the classroom.
Best case scenario: The young man wins his suit. Then, the following school year, the school district transitions to collared shirts and khakis.