Our American
education system prides itself on instructing our children regarding the
importance of freedom and the benefits of living in a free nation. Our history books detail America’s journey
from a fledgling nation “talking” freedom yet enslaving an entire segment of
American society, through the Civil War that legally ended slavery, and
spanning the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s that eventually brought the
freedom so many had fought and died for one hundred years earlier. Civics classes teach our youth about the
United States Constitution, about limitations on government, and especially our
personal liberties as enumerated by the Constitution and as legislated by
federal and state law. Yes, our
educational system spends billions of dollars to educate students regarding their
civil liberties, as well as their civic duties, in a democratic republic like
ours. And indeed, this is a worthy and
worthwhile educational goal. Even more,
it is necessary to the continued existence of America as we know it today. I can almost hear teachers all across America
urging their students to know their rights, and to stand up for their freedom!
But…
What happens
when a student decides to actually exercise his freedom of speech and, in the
process, offends a teacher, a school principal, and eventually a police
officer? Do the government and history
teachers of this nation, and the school principals, really intend for students
to exercise their freedoms WHILE they are students? Is it more likely that these “authorities”
would rather their students “practice democracy on their own time,” or better
yet, AFTER high school graduation? And why would a police officer allow this
argument between a student and school administrators to escalate into a
criminal matter? Let us allow a recent
incident at a middle school in West Virginia answer the above questions for us…
On April 17
of this year, a student chose to wear a certain T-shirt to his school, Logan
Middle School. The student, Jared
Marcum, apparently wore this particular shirt to school that day to make a point,
that being that he had a right to wear a shirt that some people might find
offensive even though it did not violate school policy, namely the dress
code. This fourteen-year-old student has
the appearance of being a “redneck,” but that is also his right. Not everyone chooses to be “athletic,” “preppie,”
“urban,” etc. Each person can dress how
he or she pleases as long as the person does not violate the school’s dress
code.
Apparently
Mr. Marcum’s shirt did not become provocative until around lunchtime. You see, he was standing in the lunch line
with some of his friends when a teacher approached him and said the shirt
violated the dress code because it had the NRA logo, a rifle, and the slogan “Protect
Your Right” printed on the front of the shirt.
Now, I would not have been surprised at the young man being asked unroll
the rolled-up sleeves of his T-shirt, but otherwise the shirt did not violate
the dress code. How do I know the shirt
DID NOT violate that particular school’s dress code? Because the teacher did
not send Mr. Marcum home to change shirts.
Instead, the teacher told Mr. Marcum to go turn the shirt inside out SO
THAT THE SLOGAN WOULD NOT SHOW! Mr.
Marcum refused to do so, and was promptly sent to “the office.”
Inside the
principal’s office, the teacher explained that he had ordered Mr. Marcum to
turn his T-shirt inside out because the printing on the front was “offensive.” Of course the principal sided with the
teacher, himself ordering Mr. Marcum to turn his shirt inside out. Again, as long as the slogan was not visible,
this shirt seemingly did not violate Logan Middle School dress code. If rolled shirt sleeves were the issue, that issue was not pressed. Mr. Marcum once again refused to reverse his
T-shirt. And here is where the matter
should have ended. If Mr. Marcum refused
to cooperate with the school principal, he should have been sent home, but he
was not.
Now, let’s
review this situation as it stood at the principal’s office. First, Mr. Marcum wore a shirt to school that
did not violate the dress code, although it had an NRA logo and a statement
printed on it. Several hours into the
school day, a teacher was “offended” by the MESSAGE printed on the front of the
shirt. The teacher asked the student to
reverse the T-shirt so that the message would be covered, but he did not order
the student to go home and get another shirt.
When Mr. Marcum refused to comply with the teacher, he and the teacher
went to the principal’s office. The
principal made the same demand of Mr. Marcum, that his shirt be reversed so
that the message did not show.
Otherwise, the shirt seemingly did not violate the school’s dress
code. So we have three people inside the
school principal’s office. In most
states, three people acting together to disrupt the peace can be charged with “rioting;”
however, remember that two persons in the principal’s office were acting
AGAINST the third person. So, no
riot. But, since the young man would not
cooperate with the principal, the principal called the local police department.
A few
minutes later a municipal police officer arrived. The principal explained the situation to the
officer, the officer asked the student to comply, and the student refused, once
again asserting that he was not violating the school’s dress code. Now, I would like to interject here that,
after reading several accounts of this incident from different sources, I
believe it is possible that Mr. Marcum was disrespectful to the police
officer. I do not condone this, nor
support Mr. Marcum, if this was the case.
Having served for years as a peace officer myself, I can vouch firsthand
the frustration and anger that “a smart-mouthed teenager” can bring out in even
the mildest-mannered police officer. I
can also vouch for the fact that an officer in an angry state-of-mind may act
in a way that temporarily “puts the teen in his place” rather than settling the
matter within the context of the law.
But “long story short,” the officer got tired of the teen “running his
mouth” and arrested him for “inciting a riot” and “obstructing an officer in
performance of his duties.”
What????
The officer
should have simply taken the student home, or called the parents to come and
get the child. This would have allowed
the parents and the school staff to talk later when cooler heads could
prevail. Instead, the officer “cuffed
and stuffed” Mr. Marcum. The officer “solved”
the school’s dress code problem, but, in all likelihood, involved himself, his
department, and the school in a case that will probably end up in the United
States Supreme Court. In the process,
the teacher, the principal, and the police officer all demonstrated to this young
man that civil rights and democracy operate OUTSIDE the school walls, or do not
attach to the student until he reaches “the age of majority.”
I am sure
that this will not be the last we hear of this incident, nor should it be. And I have to wonder, if the shirt with
rolled-up sleeves had displayed a statement such as “Not All Muslims Are
Terrorists,” or “Ban Guns Now!” would the teacher have been “offended,” would
the principal have called the police, and would the officer have felt the need
to put this student in his place? Again,
I do not support a student in his disrespect of school officials, and
especially in disrespect of the police.
But clearly, this student did not violate the school dress code, nor did
he “nearly cause a riot” as the local police chief later told reporters. No, instead, Mr. Marcum got a firsthand
lesson in democracy and “standing up for freedom.” I have to wonder, though, after his arrest,
upcoming trial, and the possible lawsuit looming ahead, will Mr. Marcum be so
insistent on exercising his freedom?
God Bless
(and HELP) America!
No comments:
Post a Comment