Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right .. to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts

Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts

April 29, 2005




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

DES MOINES -- The Iowa Civil Liberties Union today blasted school officials for threatening to punish two teenage girls who wore anti-abortion T-shirts to school. The group also offered to assist the students in their quest to continue wearing the shirts at school.

"These students had their free speech rights violated, and the ICLU stands ready to defend them," said Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ICLU. "This appears to be a clear case of government abuse of power, and it must be stopped."

Roosevelt High School students Tamera Chandler, 18, and her sister, Brittany Chandler, 15, this week wore T-shirts displaying a picture of a fetus and the words, "Abortion Kills Kids." School officials apparently told them to cover up the shirts or face punishment.

The ICLU said that the fact that these girls attend Roosevelt High School is particularly ironic because the school was the site of a famous 1960s lawsuit involving the right of students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. That lawsuit, Tinker v. Des Moines, was also brought by the ICLU. <snip>

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159

The mom had a lawyer telling them they had the right to wear it, but the school pricipal also had a lawyer telling her it was well within the principal's authority to disallow it under the dress-code policy; they felt it was too graphic for the younger kids. The mom, who had accompanied her daughter to school anticipating a showdown, later took her home, but did manage to get their picture on the front page of the local paper. (sorry, no link)

At most Chicago Public Elementary Schools, kids have to wear uniforms. One day of each month it's "dress down day" but there is still a code: No words on T-shirts, none. Seems like that's fair enough. Maybe Des Moines could learn something from Chicago!

Meeting with some resistance, mostly by those who think they can't afford uniforms in addition to all the other "back-to-school" items they think they have to buy (don't realize the uniform purchases would be in place of alot of that other stuff). But I've not heard of anyone objecting because of freedom of speech or expression. I think it will happen eventually; I hope so.

You got to love the ACLU. The best answer to bad speech is more speech. The first amendment is meaningless unless it also protects bad speech.

I may disagree with what these girls have to say, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it. All part of free speech. :)

... often had a political motive. :)

nobody is pro abortion so therefore the correct term would be anti-choice.

for anyone who wants one.

sue for discrimination against girls in athletics. We won. My deposition for that lawsuit was added to the materials that helped pass Title IX in 1972. We only had girls in my family and my parents paid the same tax for education that parents did with boys. Because I was a girl, I was not allowed access to coaches, equipment, competition, etc. It was a matter of equity. So, I suppose the ACLU in Iowa is just following it's own legacy - equity.

speaker, invited by the Marriage & Family Life teacher, started showing graphic and false slides showing aborted fetuses. The photos did not match gestation times and were highly exagerated. I knew that because we also had excellent life science teachers who not only taught biology but also taught the truth about sex education. The Marriage & Family Life teacher thought I was upset about abortion and invited me to come back to class and join the discussion. I sure did! I told the anti-choice guest that I knew better than the lies she presented and that she should be ashamed for presenting these vile photos in order to scare people away from serious choices. And you know what? The teacher agreed with me! She apologized, the next day, in front of the class for not screening the presentation before allowing her guest to speak. Have we come a long way or what?

By the way, check out my post about the Filibuster, Women's Rights and HR 748 here on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x1340

What about the students who have had abortions?

What about the students whose sisters or mothers or friends or aunts have had abortions?

What about their right to get an education -- and not to be discriminated against by the creation of an atmosphere hostile to them in the place where they must go to get an education?

Children are required to attend school, and for most children this means that they are required to attend public schools. But regardless of that, they have a RIGHT to attend public schools, and to be treated with respect in those schools, and not be subjected to messages in their school that portray them, or their friends and family, as murderers.

And what about the teachers? Statistically, a good proportion of the women teachers in the average school could be expected to have had at least one abortion -- and thus a good proportion of the men teachers to have had some involvement in a situation that resulted in an abortion. What about their right to work in a safe and non-threatening workplace?

"Abortion Kills Kids" isn't some kind of fact. It's an opinion, and a bizarre and false one at that.

And c'mon, let's face it. It isn't "abortion" that "kills kids" any more than guns "kill kids" -- it's PEOPLE who do it; specifically, it's women who have abortions. "Abortion Kills Kids" MEANS "Women who have abortions kill kids". That's all, and exactly what, it means. And some of those women will be students and teachers at the school, and their friends and family.

So how about "Black People Smell Funny"? Or "Jews Are Stingy"? Or "Boys Are Stupid"? All are rather more innocuous than calling someone a murderer. Would the ACLU be defending them? Would I care?

Should schoolchildren really be permitted to wear clothing expressing negative characterizations of members of the school community? Should such characterizations, let alone characterizations as extreme as this, be permitted, especially, when the victims of those negative characterizations are also commonly victims of violence committed by people who believe or propagate those negative characterizations?

"The best answer to bad speech is more speech."
"I may disagree with what these girls have to say, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it."

Yeah, yeah, that's charming. And utterly simplistic.

Why should there be an onus on schoolchildren, or on any working person, to "answer" "bad speech" in their school or workplace? Why should a school/workplace be offered up for anyone who feels like it to engage in speech that demeans and demonizes them based on their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status ... or on their exercise of their fundamental human right as women of reproductive choice?

Permitting vicious crap like this to be displayed by smarmy self-righteous little shits in the schools is a violation of the right of other students -- students who are engaging in no speech or other activity that in any way interferes with the little shits' ability to get an education -- to receive an education in a public facility without discrimination.

Just as permitting any other little shits to parade around displaying messages like "Black People Smell Funny" or "Jews Are Stingy" -- or something actually more equivalent to the message that women who have abortions are murderers -- would create a hostile environment that discriminates against the targets of those messages.

I'm put in mind of the mind that is so open that it leaks when I see platitudes like these, in response to viciousness like this.


The ICLU said that the fact that these girls attend Roosevelt High School is particularly ironic because the school was the site of a famous 1960s lawsuit involving the right of students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.

There'd have to be some equivalency between a Tshirt accusing women who have (legally) exercised their fundamental rights of killing kids and an armband protesting a war, for this to be even remotely "ironic", I'd say.